Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Cancelled tv shows
In case you're curious, you can pretty much figure out what tv shows will be cancelled by checking my level of enthusiasm. Well, not a hundred percent of the time but very nearly. Apparently American Idol's lead-in was stronger than my enthusiasm-of-death for House because it's still doing well even though I've liked it all along. I do hope I haven't jinxed the second season of Damages, however.

I have to wonder what the producers' reasoning is when they give us strong and interesting characters who become part of our lives . . . and then they yank them away without warning or time to prepare. After all, you'd know if you're coming to the end of a book.

I may have inherited this curse from my father. We both enjoyed the Robert Urich "Spenser" series - especially the Hawk characterization. And we both liked Tom Selleck's version of the Jesse Stone novels by Robert Parker. Last year I was a fan of James Woods' Shark mostly because I loved the relationship between Shark and his daughter, difficult and loving and layered. In shows like these, central plots may be clichéd and/or silly but none have clichéd or predictable characters.

The current example is this and last year's Eli Stone. It had some simplistic flaws and even a few wince-worthy moments but it made an attempt to mix drama with humor and even outrageousness now and then, even occasional flamboyance. Watching it was a lot of fun. Who'd have thought George Michael could be charming as a recurrent figment of someone's imagination? Who'd have known that Victor Garber could break into song and dance right after delivering a serious legal argument and be terrific fun? Or that Katie Holmes could be a rousing song and dance girl herself? All that was true, however, and yet last night appears to have been the final aired episode. No warning to the writers so they could wrap up story lines. No warning to viewers so we could wrap up our feelings. It's as if a whole bunch of acquaintances were just vaporized. It's unfair to them, and to us.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 10:37 PM

Sunday, November 2, 2008
"The Last Enemy"

SPOILER ALERT

My friend and I watched the final episode of "The Last Enemy" tonight - a five-part miniseries on PBS. It was entirely absorbing to watch, if much too long and drawn out. It was great to see Robert Carlyle again as he did his usual super job as a menacing (probably rogue) government gun-for-hire but most of the acting was cardboardish if not downright leaden.

The plot has been described as near-future fiction rather than science fiction because it starts from the five million surveillance cameras proliferated on the streets of London and other cities around the U.K. (one for every twelve residents, according to some). That amount of being watched is indeed horrible, unacceptable, beyond Orwellian stuff and if this movie helps to alert people enough to be sure to keep governments from going this far, then good for it. The fact that human inattentiveness and error would almost certainly prevent such eyes from working much of the time does not in any way mitigate the unacceptablenss, it just means that whatever does get done will not work as it is meant to.

My serious problem with the miniseries, however is that some plot lines were left dangling and the overall resolution was altogether lacking, unless my own i.q. points have fallen. Here are my questions for which I would be most grateful if any reader has answers and/or can make me feel less cheated. It's one thing to suspend disbelief because someone can hide, undetected, behind a door, and entirely another when things just do not make sense.

-- Why did they fake blow up Michael?
-- Why would it matter that Yasmin thought he was dead? Faking his death wasn't necessary to test his reaction to the "tag" and it seems like an awful lot of work to have gone through.

-- Why kill all those medical workers when they were supposedly looking for the doctor? Especially when it turned out in the end that he was working with them??!!

-- Why was Carlyle running his operation separately and seemingly in intense opposition and hiding from the government? Apparently he was working for - or with - James, Beasley and Harewood, given that they knew where his warehouse was and that he assisted James in that last scene with the Doctor, so that whole conceit seems utterly pointless.

-- Who was the black haired assassin? Who did he work for? What became of him?

-- At various moments, Stephen was highly aware of all the ways in which he was or could be watched - and yet at other times (as when he ran his assault on the Brompton hospital for blood samples), he was surprised that "they" knew where he was. As a savant who was so aware of what was going on, it seems completely nuts that he'd just forget about the cameras.

-- Why kill Michael? He's no longer any danger to T.I.A. or Project Tab since they can keep him out of England with his new tag. And, conversely, surely they should have killed Stephen since he knows everything and can join or even arouse resistance. It's not as if they were reluctant to knock off pretty much anyone.

-- Most importantly: who is the grand manipulator running James, Beasley and Harewood?

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 10:49 PM

Friday, September 12, 2008
Two questions after the interview
Q1. Is it just me or was the “hubris” question astonishing for its, er, hubris? And if it's an acceptable question, then he'd better ask Obama and Biden whether they displayed hubris in thinking they could run considering that Obama's experience is pretty thin and Biden's is entirely as a member of the Senate, hardly a place where one learns how to manage budgets and people.
Obama (running for
president)
14 years' experience —
4 as director of Developing Communities Project, 1 as Project Vote director, 6 as an Illinois state senator, 3 as a U.S. senator

 
McCain (running for
president)
50 years' experience —
7 in the Navy, 3 as Navy liaison to the Senate, 4 as a U.S. represenative, 21 as U.S. senator

 
Biden (running for vice president)
38 years' experience —
1.5 as a corporate lawyer, 1.5 as a Delaware County councilman, 35 as a U.S. senator

 
Palin (running for vice president)
15 years' experience —
2 as a sportscaster, 3 as a city councilman, 4 as mayor, 2 as chair of a gas & oil commission, 2 as chair of an ethics committee, 2 as governor
There's not much in the way of job training for the White House, when it comes right down to it. This year there are two oldish guys running who have a heck of a lot of experience though only as senators and two youngish people running who each have very little experience, the weaknesses differing but perhaps balancing each other out. Ergo, the question - and concern - is every bit as germane for Obama.

Just as a point of comparison, keep in mind that the revered and adored JFK had spent almost four years in the Navy and thirteen years in the Senate when he ran for the presidency. Not even as much as Obama or Palin. Hmmm.

Q2. Why is Palin practically the only focus of attention and questioning? Is it because the journalists didn't see her coming? (I did, but I don't register on their radar.) Because I wonder why they've decided to grill just this one v.p. candidate within an inch of all our lives? Is anyone grilling Biden? If history books and my memory serve, no one grilled or even paid much attention to Garner, Wallace, Truman, Barkley (who?), Nixon, Johnson, Humphrey, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Mondale, Bush the elder, Quayle, Gore or Cheney, did they? Not to mention Biden.

So, please. ENOUGH. Let's discuss ISSUES. Remember them? The things that actually matter in terms of who we elect? Please.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 2:20 PM

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The unbearable lightness of teenagers' lives
I'm not sure why it's "the" American teenager in the title and not "an" American teenager and heaven knows none of these kids bear much resemblance to any teenagers I've ever known or know now aside from their relentless self-absorption. Whatever, I got hooked watching The Secret Life of the American Teenager because of Molly Ringwald and couldn't not watch after that. It had its season finale last night and just as confused about what I think of it as I was at the beginning. I know I like Ashley best (she's the imperfect daughter and is played by Olivia Hussey's daughter, India Eisley) and Molly Ringwald's a close second. Everyone else is almost unbearably breathily emotional, a description that doesn't make much sense unless you've seen the show. There are plenty of big issues (pregnancy, divorce, religion, intolerance, emotional and physical abuse, handicaps, just to name a few) and every episode touched on almost all of them just a tad manipulatively and casually, to the point where sometimes I had to scream and stop watching or skip ahead. Here's the basic story outline:

  • 15-year-old gets carelessly pregnant, doesn't even like the guy let alone want to be his girlfriend or wife or the mother of his child

  • same girl meets really nice guy soon after discovering she's preggers and they realize they're each other's soulmates even though . . . .

  • same girl's two supposedly best friends spill the beans and pretty soon everyone knows that goodie-two-shoes isn't so pure after all

  • meanwhile back at the ranch (just kidding) the putative father is a rotten guy who'll twist and turn every way he can to get girls to, er, play with him

  • but then we learn that his parents were wastes of space and he was abused so it's really all so sad and understandable

  • except that his main squeeze (literally, in this case) is the school slut who we would hate except that she's also brilliant even though her father has been absent for 16 years (yes, all her life)

  • but since she wants to be in charge of her life she tracks him down and finds out he's the town's D.A. and when she confronts him he decides he want to get involved in her life now and suddenly he's the only parental unit in the whole show who acts like one
      There are a bazillion other things going on. Like the actor who played Smallville's Clark Kent's father (John Schneider) plays the father of the "Christian good girl" which is just too recent and the roles are too similar so every show I had to remind myself that we're not in Kansas any more. And Grace, the aforementioned "Christian good girl," is ridiculously stereotypical, down to and including being blonde and sticky sweet and about to fall hooklineandsinker for the 15-year-old's bad-guy-father-to-be, of course. And there's a black girlfriend and a Latina slutty girl and all the rest. But it's somehow hard to resist despite way too many coincidences, juxtapositions, convenient overlaps, etc., and a tremendously unpleasant smug self-righteous attitude about all those platitudes. And yet . . .

      • Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 4:11 PM

      Tuesday, September 2, 2008
      Kay Francis month
      Kay Francis is TCM's featured actress this month. As a result, September will be fantastic, wonderful and sleep-deprived. They're showing 42 of her films, possibly because she is one of the most interesting pre-code and just-post-code actresses. She infused each character with an unusual mix of toughness, feminity and clear-eyed genuineness. I often find her more modern all those years ago than many of today's actors. In fact I can't think of any current performers with anything like her combination of strength and power with charm, sex appeal and occasional silliness. Anyway, for our viewing and recording convenience, here is the schedule:













      date / time / title / director and other leading actor(s)

      Sept. 4

      8:00 p.m. — Raffles (d. G.Fitzmaurice, w/ David Niven)

      9:15 p.m. — Jewel Robbery (d. W.Dieterle, w/ William Powell)*

      10:30 p.m. — One Way Passage (d. T.Garnett, w/ William Powell)*

      11:45 p.m. — Divorce (d. W.Nigh, w/ Bruce Cabot)*

      Sept. 5

      1:00 a.m. — Man Wanted (d. W.Dieterle, w/ David Manners & Una Merkel)*

      2:15 a.m. — Men Are Like That (d. S.Logan, w/ Pat O'Brien)

      3:45 a.m. — Comet Over Broadway (d. B.Berkeley, w/ Ian Hunter & Donald Crisp)*

      5:00 a.m. — I Loved A Woman (d. A.E.Green, w/ Edward G. Robinson)*

      6:45 a.m. — Living on Velvet (d. F.Borzage, w/ George Brent & William Warren)*

      Sept. 11

      8:00 p.m. — Trouble in Paradise (d. E.Lubitsch w/ Herbert Marshall & M.Hopkins)*

      9:30 p.m. — Cynara (d. K.Vidor, w/ Ronald Coleman)*

      11:00 p.m. — A Notorious Affair (d. L.Bacon, w/ Basil Rathbone)

      Sept. 12

      12:15 a.m. — The Feminine Touch (d. W.S.VanDyke, w/ Don Ameche)

      2:00 a.m. — Street of Women (d. A.Mayo, w/ Roland Young)

      3:00 a.m. — Give Me Your Heart (d. A.Mayo, w/ George Brent)

      4:30 a.m. — Stolen Holiday (d. M.Curtiz, w/ Claude Rains)*

      6:00 a.m. — Mary Stevens, M.D. (d. L.Bacon, w/ Lyle Talbot)

      7:15 a.m. — Passion Flower (d. W.de Mille, w/ Charles Bickford)

      8:45 a.m. — Another Dawn (d. W.Dieterle, w/ Errol Flynn)*

      10:00 a.m. — The Goose and the Gander (d. A.E.Green, w/ George Brent)*

      11:15 a.m. — The House on 56th St. (d. R.Florey, w/ Ricardo Cortez & Gene Raymond)*

      Sept. 18

      8:00 p.m. — Transgression (d. H.Brenon, w/ Ricardo Cortez)

      9:15 p.m. — Secrets of an Actress (d. W.Keighley, w/ George Brent)

      10:30 p.m. — Women in the Wind (d. J.Farrow (Mia's father), w/ William Gargan)

      11:45 p.m. — King of the Underworld (d. L.Seller, w/ Humphrey Bogart)

      Sept. 19

      1:00 a.m. — It's A Date (d. W.Seiter, w/ Walter Pidgeon)

      2:45 a.m. — Playgirl (d. F.Woodruff, w/ Nigel Bruce)

      4:15 a.m. — Little Men (d. N.Z.McLeod, w/ Jack Oakie)

      5:45 a.m. — My Bill (d. J.Farrow, w/ Bonita Granville (of Nancy Drew fame))

      7:00 a.m. — In Name Only (d. J.Cromwell, w/ Cary Grant)*

      8:45 a.m. — The Keyhole (d. M.Curtiz, w/ George Brent)*

      10:00 a.m. — I Found Stella Parish (d. M.LeRoy, w/ Paul Lukas & Ian Hunter)

      Sept. 25

      8:00 p.m. — Mandalay (d. M.Curtiz, w/ Ricardo Cortez)*

      9:15 p.m. — Doctor Monica (d. W.Keighley, w/ William Warren)

      10:15 p.m. — Confession (d. J.May, w/ Basil Rathbone & Ian Hunter)

      Sept. 26

      12:00 a.m. — First Lady (d. S.Logan, w/ Victor Jory & Anita Louise)

      1:30 a.m. — Always in My Heart (d. J.Graham, w/ Walter Huston)

      3:15 a.m. — Stranded (d. F.Borzage, w/ George Brent)*

      4:30 a.m. — Storm at Daybreak (d. R.Boleslawski, w/ Walter Huston)

      6:00 a.m. — Guilty Hands (d. W.S.van Dyke, w/ Lionel Barrymore)

      7:15 a.m. — Allotment Wives (d. W.Nigh, w/ Paul Kelly)

      8:45 a.m. — The White Angel (d. W.Dieterle, w/ Ian Hunter & Donald Woods)

      *Particularly recommended by me or The Self-Style Siren or Laura or TCM or others (to be added). . . .

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 2 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:25 AM

      Monday, August 25, 2008
      Heavy thought
      The weekend was full of family and friends.  Going to the county fair together, a big birthday party for two, lots of children running and playing, etc., etc.  A lot of the time and the things we did were tons of fun and wonderful! 

      I don't like to get too personal here but suffice it also to say that some of the time was difficult.  One day before I move over to the great beyond I would like to sort out why some people seem deliberate in their desire to be unpleasant, or at least not deliberate in an attempt to be pleasant.  Life is too short to waste time offending each other, isn't it?  Even if it isn't always exactly how we feel?  What is gained by being hurtful even if it expresses how we feel at that moment?  Is complete bluntness worth the sadness and confusion left in its wake?  As a commenter on a recent post about In Plain Sight said, "In reality, the villains in our lives are the people who confuse and emotionally manipulate, abuse or neglect us--not gun toting psychopaths."

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:21 AM

      Monday, August 18, 2008
      Natalie Coughlin
      In 2004 Natalie Coughlin won 5 medals in 5 events in the Athens summer Olympics.  In 2008 she won 6 medals in 6 events in the Beijing summer Olympics. In other words: 2 olympics - 4 years -  11 events - 11 medals (one medal per each olympics event). Why aren't TV, newspapers and the internet all over her fantastic achievement?  She's an astonishing athlete with amazing olympics achievements. Does being a woman make her accomplishment less impressive? How about just as impressive!

      Michael Phelps is superb, as we know, but Coughlin is, too, and should be earning tons of press and praise.
      • Phelps, 23 — swam 17 times in 9 days in heats, semi-finals and finals;
        he swam in 5 individual events and 3 relays - 8 events in all;
        he won 8 medals
      • Coughlin, 26 — swam 14 times in 9 days in heats, semi-finals and finals;
        she swam in 3 individual events and 3 relays - 6 events in all;
        she won 6 medals
      And she's "just a girl" (l.o.l. as they say). Would it in any way diminish his achievement to acknowledge hers?!

      It may violate some unwritten code (I hope not) but I'm including the paragraph that brought all this to my attention. It's by Rachel Larimore writing at Slate's xx Factor. I'm including it verbatim because I agree with it completely and because, swimming fanatic though I am, I confess that I didn't know either and that upsets me. I'm mad at NBC, first and foremost, but also with myself for not knowing about it:
      If there was anything that disappointed me about the Olympics swimming coverage, it's that Natalie Coughlin's own remarkable feat—winning six medals in six events for the U.S. women—went comparably unnoticed by NBC's commentators. Granted, her haul of one gold, two silvers, and three bronzes wasn't as impressive as Phelps', but she swam an ambitious program and has never finished out of the medals in 11 Olympic events (she also swam in 2004). (Emphasis added.)
      As The Daily Breeze put it, "the winner of the most medals both in Beijing and four years ago in Athens is no surprise. But do you know who was second? Some hints: It's the same runner-up in 2004 and 2008. And it's a woman. She's from the United States. She's a swimmer, like Michael Phelps. No [not] Katie Hoff, who gets a lot of attention but doesn't have many medals to show for it."

      Katie Hoff was the darling of the Beijing commentators. She'd won no medals in Athens when she swam there at 15 but she's only 19 now so could have two more Olympics if she wants them. This time she swam 4 individual and 2 relay events for which she won 3 medals (one silver and two bronze), no mean feat but nothing like what Coughlin accomplished.

      So major and enormous congratulations to Natalie Coughlin! We need to arouse righteous indignation and lots of praise and get NBC to back up and give lots of praise where it's due. Phelps won 11 medals between the two Olympics - and so did Coughlin. He is 23, she is 26. He is a physiological phenom, she is lithe nut nothing like a "human dolphin." It's horrible that in 2008 her amazing feat has garnered almost no recognition so I'm doing my part. She is an extraordinary athlete. She is the first woman to win back-to-back Olympic gold in the 100m backstroke. And she is the first U.S. woman swimmer to win six medals in one Olympics - and she won 11 medals between the two Olympics, never failing to win at least bronze - one short of the record for a woman athlete.

      Labels: ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 5:37 PM

      Sunday, August 17, 2008
      Purpose-driven interview
      It was an interesting two hours, far quieter and more reflective than most of what we'll see before the election (or afterwards, most likely). It's doubtful than anyone's mind was changed but perhaps it served to focus some of the reasons people support Obama or McCain.  Rick Warren, he of the huge best seller "Purpose-Driven Life" which Ashley Smith used so brilliantly three years ago in that hideous face-off with Brian Nichols (read my take on that unusual incident if you're interested), hosted Obama and McCain for a values intererview, if you will.  The idea was to ask questions about moral and philosophical outlook. Questions like "what was your greatest moral failing" and "what do you think is the best and the worst in America at the moment."

      I thought McCain seemed kind of punchy and a bit odd in his delivery but maybe that's just him and I haven't seen longish interviews with him before.  He generally spouted campaign statements he's rehearsed and said before even if they didn't quite fit the question.  A few people have observed that McCain seemed to know the questions, but I think (hope) that was mostly because the topics and questions were what a church audience would want to know and therefore would be familiar to McCain, more so than to Obama. McCain was essentially speaking to his base or at least to a base that he hopes will vote for him, given the size of the religious "bloc" and their impact on elections in the U.S. at present.  I thought that Obama seemed to be considering the questions and answering in a thoughtful tone and I found his comments interesting.

      The moral integrity issue is being discussed all over the place today, as McCain acknowledged his greatest moral failing as his treatment of his first wife, but I'm puzzled by the adulation he nevertheless garners because of his observance of the "code of conduct" as a prisoner of war. Why is one so much more important than the other?  And (don't yell at me for asking this) how is it relevant that at one time he was a very decent soldeir when at another time he was a deceptive and dishonest husband?

      Ironically, Warren is viewed with skepticism by many of the so-called religious right because he supposedly has some liberal viewpoints. One of his greatest strengths, as he displayed in his introduction last night, is his passion for civility and calmness in discourse among people who may differ and disagree.  Given the enormous differences between this year's candidates, if he could convince extremists on the right, perhaps others could convince extremists on the left and all of here in the wide middle will benefit.

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 10:26 AM

      Saturday, August 16, 2008
      Torres and Bolt and Lezak and Phelps
      Awesome. Amazing. Dara Torres is 41 years old, twenty years older than most of her fellow Olympians, and a mother who managed to win two silvers at this Olympics, one by that ridiculously small margin of .01 of a second (less than two inches). Bolt is the Jamaican who cruised the 100m sprint in 9.69 and won looking as if he was just in a practice (probably the point of all those practices, come to think of it). Lezak (see my post on him earlier this week), 10 years older than Phelps, is amazing and under-hyped, a superb swimmer and team-mate without whom Phelps' medal count might have been smaller and indeed Phelps has paid him much credit. And there's Phelps himself, of course, who physically and mentally handled everything both smooth and not so smooth (grabbing the wall at the end of the fly instead of letting it slip away, enduring nasty remarks by rivals, being unable to see in one race because of slipped goggles, etc.), 17 races in 9 days (heats plus finals) and, on top of it all, cracking 7 world records in the process.

      Phelps' butterfly stroke is mesmerizing - strong and beautiful.  I must pay tribute to my daughter's butterfly, too, however, every bit as amazing as his. Yes I'm prejudiced but others who saw her fly said so, too.  (And her high school fastest time still holds, years later.  Who's a proud mom?!)   I felt happy for Phelps' mother tonight, I must say.  All those early morning practices, hurried dinners, rushed homework, weekends full of chlorine and humidity atop uncomfortable metal bleachers and cheering on all the other age-group swimmers. It was gracious and very sweet of M.P. to publicly acknowledge his mother's part in his success when he climbed over the photogs to give her his bouquet and his 8-medal plaque.

      As many (tired) people have said, this is a particularly exciting Olympics.

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 11:55 PM

      Friday, August 15, 2008
      Democratic convention
      HIllary's tanks are poised and ready, waiting on the outskirts of Denver. The invasion is ready. Oh, wait, I might have my stories mixed up. Might. Might not.

      Apparently Obama has agreed that Hillary's name be placed in nomination and that she be included in the roll call vote. One hopes Obama has a plan, a/k/a/ knows what he's doing. He did manage his campaign brilliantly well after all. But what would prevent her supporters from demanding that the delegates (super and otherwise) support Hillary and / or that Obama choose her for vice-president? I'm sure there are conventions (heh) about delegates' commitment to their states' results but I doubt if they're legally enforceable.

      I have to say I just keep shaking my head and saying "what was he thinking?". I am concerned about this acquiescence to the Clintons. Yes, it is respectful and even reasonable that the convention reflect what actually occurred so that the historical record show clearly that a woman received significant numbers of primary votes. That Hillary won a sizable number of votes. But one must keep in mind that this is the Clintons we're talking about, people not exactly known for their calm adherence to logic or agreements. Witness Bill's diatribes during the campaign (arguably responsible for her loss) and Hillary's handling of any number of things including her campaign (whose mismanagement disappointed many who were initially supportive of her candidacy, sufficiently that they became disillusioned). Is further proof needed as to why Hillary should not be Obama's (or anyone's) veep? He would have to spend at least half his time holding her off, not governing.

      As for tanks, does anyone remember the 1968 convention? The lesson from that dreadful time 40 years ago is that it really is possible for chaos to reign absolutely and utterly supreme. I suspect an invasion is underway but maybe I'm wrong. my fingers are crossed and I promise to try to trust fairness and optimism.

      P.S. Read this amusing take from Slate's Henneberger. Similar skepticism but much funnier than me.

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 3 comment(s) | posted by jau at 2:39 AM

      Thursday, August 14, 2008
      Georgia on my mind
      (How come the NY Post hasn't used "Georgia on my mind" for a headline? If I've thought of it, for sure they have. Does it sound disrespectful? I don't mean it to. Also, I've put this aside in George typeface just to amuse myself and any other typeface fans. Ah the advantages of being under (over? behind? in front of?) the msm radar.)

      Charles Krauthammer has a detailed and reasonable article at Real Clear Politics on the so-called cease fire and what he thinks can be done non-militarily to improve things. All based on the idea that "We have cards. We should play them. Much is at stake." I continue to disagree with people, including him, who think Bush should have bolted from the Olympics when all this happened (I wrote about my reasoning yesterday) but I very much like his suggestion that the other seven members of the current G8 should withdraw on the grounds that Putin has defiled his legitimacy there. Krauthammer says the G7 should then be reformed and that Russia and/or its future permutation forever disallowed. I'm an eternal optimist and believe it is possible that Russia could become democratic but maybe I'm mistaken; it's completely irrelevant what I think anyway since I don't get any influence on it at all.

      In a related matter, two little girls who were visiting their grandparents in Georgia (the Baltic one, not the U.S. east coast one) for the summer are apparently unable to return home because of the difficulties there at present. The parents appeared on a morning news show today. Why can't the girls leave? Are the borders locked down? Are things worse there than we have been told?

      Labels: , , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:22 AM

      Olympics
      They're very exciting to watch, the Olympics, and I swore I was going to resist watching this year. Silly me. I think they're being better covered than usual, too, with less ridiculousness than last time (you know: heart-string pulling, "human interest" stories instead of showing events). The schedule is here though it's not etched in stone for the most part.

      Labels: ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:18 AM

      Tuesday, August 12, 2008
      Yang Peiyi
      The theme of this Olympics' opening ceremonies was "Children are the nation's flowers" but apparently that was true only for children who met the cuteness requirements of the ceremony's music designer, Chen Qigang.

      Every blogger and news outlet in the world should display this 7-year-old girl's picture front and center. Yang Peiyi sang the opening ceremony song but her face wasn't shown. Another little girl stood in her place and lip-synched because Yang Peiyi wasn't allowed to be on camera because some Chen Qigang deemed her insufficiently telegenic for the opening ceremonies. He is said to be pleased because he believes he had both "a perfect voice [and] a perfect image."

      All of which demonstrates (again) the rigid and misguided control being exerted over the appearance of this Olympics. The purpose is said to be to ensure that China is "seen at its best." But it's both offensive and ridiculous to think that a real 7-year-old with a beautiful voice is anything other than China's best. And how does China "look" anything other than its worst when it makes a move like this? It's particularly ridiculous when you consider that the whole raison d'être of the Olympics is to honor and praise not superficial appearance but extraordinary performance.

      Labels: , , ,

      Permalink | 6 comment(s) | posted by jau at 8:58 AM

      Monday, August 11, 2008
      Jason Lezak
      The French coach Claude Faquet was gracious: "I am neither shocked nor disappointed," he said even though his foursome had been expected to win right up to the last .08 second. "[Jazon Lezak] is a swimmer with a huge amount of experience and he swam intelligently. As far as I'm concerned, it is not [we] who lost but the Americans who won."

      The American coach Eddie Reese glowed: "There's never been [an anchor swim like that] in my memory. . . . Not running down somebody who holds the world record, who's on their game. That was incredible. ... It has to be in the unbelievable category. That's the biggest word I know."

      The German coach Orjan Madsen was incredulous: "The whole thing was . . .one of those moments where you just sit back and say. . .if I [hadn't] seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it."

      32-year-old Jason Lezak is a strong, thoughtful and amazing guy. He "figured this was one opportunity in all my career" so when he "flipped at the 50, it really crossed my mind for a split second that there was no way. Then I changed. And I said, 'You know what, that's ridiculous at the Olympics. I'm here for the United States of America. I don't care how bad it hurts or whatever.' ... Honestly in five seconds I was thinking all these things. I got like a supercharge and took it from there." A fantastic moment that I'm really really glad I saw.

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:09 AM

      Thursday, August 7, 2008
      They tuck you up. . . .
      Interesting, thoughtful and fairly serious interview with David Thewlis here.  Love his quote of Billy Bragg's retake on a Philip Larkin "thing about the enemy of the artist [being] the pram in the hall."
      His view of that was he didn't believe it at all. He's got several children and loves it and finds it inspiring. He gave me a poem he wrote that was a pastiche of Larkin's "They f*** you up, your mum and dad". He changed it to "They tuck you up, your mum and dad" and rewrote every line to make it a positive, loving, parental poem. It was a beautiful thing.
      He and Billy Bragg are right: you can make/take time to be both an artist and a parent.

      Labels: , , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 10:42 PM

      Wednesday, August 6, 2008
      Paris in 2008
      If you haven't seen the whole thing, do. It's, like, totally worth watching. Enjoy!

      You've got to give Paris a ton of credit for doing this and for its wit. Apparently Chris Henchy (Brooke Shields' husband) produced it - don't know if he wrote it, too but whoever did deserves a minor Emmy. And, um, her energy plan? it has merit. Hmm.... Paris for vice president....???

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:14 AM

      Sunday, July 27, 2008
      The TV Effect
      Thanks to a comment from prolific blogger friend Dustbury about my post on the Kennedy-Nixon debates and the effect of Nixon's discomfort that resulted in a sweaty upper lip, I've been thinking about the effect that television will have on this year's election.  I wonder what impact it would have were we all suddenly required simply to listen to Obama and McCain without seeing them?  I've tried listening with my eyes shut and I have to say that I don't like either of them that way.  Obama sounds too rehearsed and McCain sounds too edgy.  On the other hand, if how a candidate looks on television is irrelevant, presumably so are their tones of voice.  I suppose what they write could be a valid measure of the men but there are ghostwriters these days and Obama is known to be more facile with the pen/keyboard anyway.  I still don't know what one is supposed to use to measure and/or judge these two against each other.

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 5 comment(s) | posted by jau at 10:19 PM

      Saturday, July 26, 2008
      1960 redux?
      Remember the Kennedy-Nixon debates? No, of course few people still alive remember them (just kidding). But seriously, if you saw them, you probably remember that Nixon's upper lip often glistened with droplets of sweat and his eyes shifted around as he made his assertions. He may have been lucid and possibly even correct but it didn't matter because his appearance was so shaky. Kennedy, on the other hand, was the picture-perfect image of a relaxed and confident alpha male. It also didn't particularly matter what he said - he could have been illucid and downright wrong - because he was cool, calm and collected.

      These days we have McCain and Obama facing off. No debates yet presumably since they're going to await official nomination before taking each other on directly. We do have numerous occasions to see them, however and, as this article points out, Obama appears laid-back and a bit bemused by the whole thing while McCain seems tense and eager to get away. I think that's true although I'm not sure whether the electorate will make its selection based on how relaxed a future president seems to be. And I wonder whether comfort in front of a crowd has anything to do with leadership skill or decision-making? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's irrelevant. I'm guessing people tend to vote for the person who makes them feel good about themselves. Is that the hard-nosed guy even if he's uncomfortable talking to us or is it the meta-politician guy who is comfortable talking to us but may not be able to state very many of his convictions or plans? Darned if I know, at least so far.

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 11:35 AM

      Wednesday, July 16, 2008
      Brit Hume
      Apparently Brit Hume will cut back to approximately one hundred on-air hours a year, becoming a senior political analyst, anchor for special events and probably a sort of eminence gris. All this to happen after the upcoming elections (h/t Laura, story here).

      Rats. That's what I have to say about this. Rats. Hume is that rare animal, an on-air commentator who combines intelligence with calmness and wit (not jokiness, real wit). Many commentators and so-called pundits like to sound smart but say ridiculous things or make it clear they don't know much about what they're discussing. Some smile at odd, inappropriate times (this is particularly true of CNN anchors, it seems to me). Some screech and holler as if loudness will compensate for thin erudition. We can only hope that Brit can't really stay away and/or that someone very much like him is waiting in the wings.

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 1 comment(s) | posted by jau at 9:20 AM

      Saturday, July 12, 2008
      Robert Anthony Snow, 1955-2008

      Labels: , ,

      Permalink | 0 comment(s) | posted by jau at 8:59 AM