If you're curious which Superhero you most closely resemble, head here.
I was "Ironman" by a mile. Not being a comics nerd, I don't know a damn thing about Ironman, so I checked it out:
Iron Man was originally an anti-communist hero. Throughout the character’s comic book series, technological advancement and national defense were constant themes, but later issues developed Stark into a more complex and vulnerable character as they depicted his battle with alcoholism and other personal difficulties.
Writers often portray Iron Man as a symbol of humanity's creativity as well as its frailties. He is often placed in contrast with his close friends Captain America and Thor, the former as a comparison between interventionist and cooperative attitudes, and the latter comparing science and the supernatural. Throughout most of his career, Iron Man has been a member of the superhero team the Avengers, and has been featured in several incarnations of his own various comic-book series.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Movie Review
I checked out The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada last night, which won acclaim at Cannes last year as Tommy Lee Jones' directorial debut. This flick is way under the radar screen, but definitely worth watching as a modern western that is alternately quirky and murky in dealing with its main theme of redemption.
It is impossible not to conjure Cormac McCarthy in evaluating this movie (as has been done in many reviews), because of the Mexican-Texas border setting, modern times, and other thematic elements; but these comparisons are apt only on the surface. The engine of the movie draws on the potential of violence instead of violence itself. Instead of McCarthy's majestic prose, this story is full of irony and includes choppy jumps from the now to the past.
The border is a great setting for a story, as has been proved many times by McCarthy as well as other movies like Lone Star and Lonesome Dove. Along with McCarthy, the latter is also a pink elephant in the room during the flick. Lee plays an old salty rancher who doesn't have much to see, but beyond his seemingly impenetrable exterior has an intrinsic goodness. Very much like the Woodrow Call character he portrayed in the classic miniseries of the Larry McMurtry book. Those familiar with Dove may have difficulty seeing the distinction between the characters.
The film has a pleasant low-budget feel that doesn't jeopardize the presentation. I can't say the same for Dwight Yoakum who always seems to be creeping into small roles. I personally wish he would hop into his long, white, Cadillac and head back for Bakersfield rather than regaling us with wooden line readings that, in terms of stale badness, remind me of Hayden Christiansen's in the Star Wars flicks. Melissa Leo shows up as a promiscuous waitress. It took me a while to realize that she played Kay on Homicide...the skilled female detective of questionable sexual orientation. I didn't find her really heating up the screen here, but it may have been the indelible creepiness of Kay etched in my brain.
All in all, definitely worth checking out. In honor of Joe Bob Briggs: one breast, some mild hand-to-hand combat that couldn't masquerade for kung-fu, one reeking corpse.
It is impossible not to conjure Cormac McCarthy in evaluating this movie (as has been done in many reviews), because of the Mexican-Texas border setting, modern times, and other thematic elements; but these comparisons are apt only on the surface. The engine of the movie draws on the potential of violence instead of violence itself. Instead of McCarthy's majestic prose, this story is full of irony and includes choppy jumps from the now to the past.
The border is a great setting for a story, as has been proved many times by McCarthy as well as other movies like Lone Star and Lonesome Dove. Along with McCarthy, the latter is also a pink elephant in the room during the flick. Lee plays an old salty rancher who doesn't have much to see, but beyond his seemingly impenetrable exterior has an intrinsic goodness. Very much like the Woodrow Call character he portrayed in the classic miniseries of the Larry McMurtry book. Those familiar with Dove may have difficulty seeing the distinction between the characters.
The film has a pleasant low-budget feel that doesn't jeopardize the presentation. I can't say the same for Dwight Yoakum who always seems to be creeping into small roles. I personally wish he would hop into his long, white, Cadillac and head back for Bakersfield rather than regaling us with wooden line readings that, in terms of stale badness, remind me of Hayden Christiansen's in the Star Wars flicks. Melissa Leo shows up as a promiscuous waitress. It took me a while to realize that she played Kay on Homicide...the skilled female detective of questionable sexual orientation. I didn't find her really heating up the screen here, but it may have been the indelible creepiness of Kay etched in my brain.
All in all, definitely worth checking out. In honor of Joe Bob Briggs: one breast, some mild hand-to-hand combat that couldn't masquerade for kung-fu, one reeking corpse.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Amnesty
My new pet issue, that allowing Iraqi warfighters (not terrorists) back into society over there is a completely logical thing to do, has found a supporter over at the National Review's Corner blog. He or she writes:
In the same way, if we capture Iraqis who are battling our troops they should be taken to Guantanamo so as to render them out of commission for the duration of hostilities, but I can't see why anyone would object to the Iraqi government supported by us giving amnesty to such people on condition that they not engage in warfare against the established order in the future. Attacks against our troops, even sneaky attacks, are not the same thing as wanton attacks against noncombatant civilians.
Both parties are turning this into a jingoistic political football and they're both wrong. Another post mentions the strategic benefits of this amnesty offer:
An amnesty proposal which focuses on dividing the opposition is a good idea. If you target the locals and give them a way to end their involvement with the insurgents, then you create a divide even if no one takes advantage of it. It creates a sense of doubt between the locals and the foreigners. If any of the locals lay down their arms they will also bring in a treasure trove of intel. They may or may not reveal the location of safe house or weapons cashes, but the fact that they might know and might talk means that those locations are compromised. The insurgency is much like the mob. It requires secrecy. It operates in the shadows. If a mobster turns states evidence and brings down a mob family, would granting him immunity desecrate the graves of fallen law enforcement?
If nothing else, this should bolster my purple cred.
In the same way, if we capture Iraqis who are battling our troops they should be taken to Guantanamo so as to render them out of commission for the duration of hostilities, but I can't see why anyone would object to the Iraqi government supported by us giving amnesty to such people on condition that they not engage in warfare against the established order in the future. Attacks against our troops, even sneaky attacks, are not the same thing as wanton attacks against noncombatant civilians.
Both parties are turning this into a jingoistic political football and they're both wrong. Another post mentions the strategic benefits of this amnesty offer:
An amnesty proposal which focuses on dividing the opposition is a good idea. If you target the locals and give them a way to end their involvement with the insurgents, then you create a divide even if no one takes advantage of it. It creates a sense of doubt between the locals and the foreigners. If any of the locals lay down their arms they will also bring in a treasure trove of intel. They may or may not reveal the location of safe house or weapons cashes, but the fact that they might know and might talk means that those locations are compromised. The insurgency is much like the mob. It requires secrecy. It operates in the shadows. If a mobster turns states evidence and brings down a mob family, would granting him immunity desecrate the graves of fallen law enforcement?
If nothing else, this should bolster my purple cred.
Summer Grilling
I was reading an article about grilling outdoors that settled upon the ubiquitous question of gas vs. charcoal. I thought the answer , given by a bona fide chef, was put pretty well, "I acknowledge that gas grilling is easier, quicker, and safer, but for me, one fundamental reason I love grilling is the excitement that's born from the risk involved: With charcoal grilling, there's a big chance you'll ruin your dinner. I love the challenge of starting the perfect fire, and cooking over live coals is unpredictable and thrilling."
For me it's a no brainer - gas. Since my tastebuds are usually sullied by poisons like cigars and booze, I don't believe I could tell the difference in taste, so I'll take the simplicity of gas.
My pride, however, is in my grill. It was an inexpensive two-burner Home Depot model that I received as a birthday present seven years ago. It has received extensive use, we grill a couple of times a week, and suffered mightily at the hands of Texas weather. To me, it's the equivalent of a twenty year-old car that one is determined to keep running...usually with coat-hangers and duct tape.
1. The hinge fastening the top of the clamshell to the bottom of the clamshell failed. Replaced with random bolt from garage junk.
2. Ignition device failed during first month of use. I currently employ the spark-and-scare method of ignition whereby I spark the gas with a long lighter and it eventually explodes all around my face.
3. Multiple grate replacements as well as many of the other innards.
4. Wooden handle eventually fell to pieces due to exposure. Fashioned a new wooden handle out of random 1x2's from previously cited garage junk. Edges rounded with router. Spacers cut from same stock and attached with more random bolts from garage. Critical design error: bolts should have been counterbored (sunk below the level of the handle). As they now stand proud of the handle, they are heated internally by the grill to the temperature of molten ingots.
5. Shelves on either side of grill decayed due to said exposure. This was my piece de resistance. I had just renovated the master bathroom which involved pulling out the old countertop. I built a new countertop, but being a packrat, the old countertop was still laying around the garage. I occasionally put it on sawhorses to be used as an assembly station because grip drips and paint blotches are easily removed from the formica top (or at least that's the idea.) I keep all this garage junk because I, of course, think I might use it someday. In this case, I cut a notch in the old countertop to go around the grill and pretty much quadrupled the amount of shelf space available on the grill. It's not the prettiest thing in the world - a black grill with a 1967 Formica bathroom counter for a prep shelf, but it's terribly functional.
I think at this rate I can keep it running for another fifteen years or so.
For me it's a no brainer - gas. Since my tastebuds are usually sullied by poisons like cigars and booze, I don't believe I could tell the difference in taste, so I'll take the simplicity of gas.
My pride, however, is in my grill. It was an inexpensive two-burner Home Depot model that I received as a birthday present seven years ago. It has received extensive use, we grill a couple of times a week, and suffered mightily at the hands of Texas weather. To me, it's the equivalent of a twenty year-old car that one is determined to keep running...usually with coat-hangers and duct tape.
1. The hinge fastening the top of the clamshell to the bottom of the clamshell failed. Replaced with random bolt from garage junk.
2. Ignition device failed during first month of use. I currently employ the spark-and-scare method of ignition whereby I spark the gas with a long lighter and it eventually explodes all around my face.
3. Multiple grate replacements as well as many of the other innards.
4. Wooden handle eventually fell to pieces due to exposure. Fashioned a new wooden handle out of random 1x2's from previously cited garage junk. Edges rounded with router. Spacers cut from same stock and attached with more random bolts from garage. Critical design error: bolts should have been counterbored (sunk below the level of the handle). As they now stand proud of the handle, they are heated internally by the grill to the temperature of molten ingots.
5. Shelves on either side of grill decayed due to said exposure. This was my piece de resistance. I had just renovated the master bathroom which involved pulling out the old countertop. I built a new countertop, but being a packrat, the old countertop was still laying around the garage. I occasionally put it on sawhorses to be used as an assembly station because grip drips and paint blotches are easily removed from the formica top (or at least that's the idea.) I keep all this garage junk because I, of course, think I might use it someday. In this case, I cut a notch in the old countertop to go around the grill and pretty much quadrupled the amount of shelf space available on the grill. It's not the prettiest thing in the world - a black grill with a 1967 Formica bathroom counter for a prep shelf, but it's terribly functional.
I think at this rate I can keep it running for another fifteen years or so.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Why the outrage?
The new Iraqi government today announced that it would consider granting amnesty to the so-called terrorists that had American blood on their hands. Then there's a flurry of denouncements saying they didn't mean to say it and/or it was taken wrong etc. I don't get the outrage here.
This is a war, as we are consistently reminded by the President. We were not invited to Iraq, but we're the most powerful nation in the world and we went anyway. Some people in Iraq didn't like this. Namely a bunch of Sunni Arabs that used to be the boss. I can see why they're pissed, but it is as impossible to conceive of the pissed off Iraqis forming a regular army and putting up a fight against mighty America as it is to think that Colonial America could field a regular army and defeat the most powerful country in the world. Certain situations require adjustment of tactics.
As I've said several times before, blowing up Humvees with remotely detonated bombs is warfighting...not terrorism. Sometimes civilians get killed, just like they did when we dropped two atomic bombs or fire-bombed Dresden, but if the target is military I can't see this as terrorism. Beheading journalists or killing Iraqis for buying mayonnaise is terrorism. So when has there even been a war in which the warfighters were permanently imprisoned? Of course they should get amnesty if they didn't commit war crimes.
Did we not allow imprisoned Vietnamese or Japanese or Germans to go back to their families? But this war will never have a Battleship Missouri moment, you say? What was to keep the Japanese, who had been suicide bombing American ships, from suicide bombing MacArthur's interim government in Tokyo?
This is a war, as we are consistently reminded by the President. We were not invited to Iraq, but we're the most powerful nation in the world and we went anyway. Some people in Iraq didn't like this. Namely a bunch of Sunni Arabs that used to be the boss. I can see why they're pissed, but it is as impossible to conceive of the pissed off Iraqis forming a regular army and putting up a fight against mighty America as it is to think that Colonial America could field a regular army and defeat the most powerful country in the world. Certain situations require adjustment of tactics.
As I've said several times before, blowing up Humvees with remotely detonated bombs is warfighting...not terrorism. Sometimes civilians get killed, just like they did when we dropped two atomic bombs or fire-bombed Dresden, but if the target is military I can't see this as terrorism. Beheading journalists or killing Iraqis for buying mayonnaise is terrorism. So when has there even been a war in which the warfighters were permanently imprisoned? Of course they should get amnesty if they didn't commit war crimes.
Did we not allow imprisoned Vietnamese or Japanese or Germans to go back to their families? But this war will never have a Battleship Missouri moment, you say? What was to keep the Japanese, who had been suicide bombing American ships, from suicide bombing MacArthur's interim government in Tokyo?
Why the outrage?
The new Iraqi government today announced that it would consider granting amnesty to the so-called terrorists that had American blood on their hands. Then there's a flurry of denouncements saying they didn't mean to say it and/or it was taken wrong etc. I don't get the outrage here.
This is a war, as we are consistently reminded by the President. We were not invited to Iraq, but we're the most powerful nation in the world and we went anyway. Some people in Iraq didn't like this. Namely a bunch of Sunni Arabs that used to be the boss. I can see why they're pissed, but it is as impossible to conceive of the pissed off Iraqis forming a regular army and putting up a fight against mighty America as it is to think that Colonial America could field a regular army and defeat the most powerful country in the world. Certain situations require adjustment of tactics.
As I've said several times before, blowing up Humvees with remotely detonated bombs is warfighting...not terrorism. Sometimes civilians get killed, just like they did when we dropped two atomic bombs or fire-bombed Dresden, but if the target is military I can't see this as terrorism. Beheading journalists or killing Iraqis for buying mayonnaise is terrorism. So when has there even been a war in which the warfighters were permanently imprisoned? Of course they should get amnesty if they didn't commit war crimes.
Did we not allow imprisoned Vietnamese or Japanese or Germans to go back to their families? But this war will never have a Battleship Missouri moment, you say? What was to keep the Japanese, who had been suicide bombing American ships, from suicide bombing MacArthur's interim government in Tokyo?
This is a war, as we are consistently reminded by the President. We were not invited to Iraq, but we're the most powerful nation in the world and we went anyway. Some people in Iraq didn't like this. Namely a bunch of Sunni Arabs that used to be the boss. I can see why they're pissed, but it is as impossible to conceive of the pissed off Iraqis forming a regular army and putting up a fight against mighty America as it is to think that Colonial America could field a regular army and defeat the most powerful country in the world. Certain situations require adjustment of tactics.
As I've said several times before, blowing up Humvees with remotely detonated bombs is warfighting...not terrorism. Sometimes civilians get killed, just like they did when we dropped two atomic bombs or fire-bombed Dresden, but if the target is military I can't see this as terrorism. Beheading journalists or killing Iraqis for buying mayonnaise is terrorism. So when has there even been a war in which the warfighters were permanently imprisoned? Of course they should get amnesty if they didn't commit war crimes.
Did we not allow imprisoned Vietnamese or Japanese or Germans to go back to their families? But this war will never have a Battleship Missouri moment, you say? What was to keep the Japanese, who had been suicide bombing American ships, from suicide bombing MacArthur's interim government in Tokyo?
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Matching Fun
In a comment to an earlier post on third parties, I mentioned how I still support voting third party to allow for Matching Funds in the next election. After writing this, I realized I know next to nothing about public funding of elections. So I went to the FEC site and read the law...so you don't have to. Here's the salient passage:
Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.
So the more votes a third party gets in an election, the more public funding they merit and, therefore, the greater their ability to get the message out in subsequent elections. Since the amount they get is a function of the ratio of their votes to the average to the two major parties, a Democratic vote in Texas actually weakens third parties. Being a centrist, I'd prefer to place my bets outside the two poles with someone like the Unity Party.
Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.
So the more votes a third party gets in an election, the more public funding they merit and, therefore, the greater their ability to get the message out in subsequent elections. Since the amount they get is a function of the ratio of their votes to the average to the two major parties, a Democratic vote in Texas actually weakens third parties. Being a centrist, I'd prefer to place my bets outside the two poles with someone like the Unity Party.
Friday, June 09, 2006
In praise of boxer-briefs
I ran across this article about the pre-eminence of boxer-briefs among men's underwear options in Slate. The author traces the arc of his underpants, which closely mirrors my own. I started with briefs, moved to boxers, and have comfortably settled in with boxer-briefs. Why? From the article:
Support. The obvious, yet oft-unspoken flaw with traditional boxers is their lack of cuppage. They are useless for athletic events, and can even be a hindrance. (An acquaintance refers to the "tunnel" created by wearing boxers under soccer shorts. Via this tunnel, one's testicles can gain sudden and direct access to the world outside.) Boxer briefs hold your goods in place and out of sight.
Stability. Traditional boxers never sit still. They are forever riding up above the waistband of your pants, or slipping down below it. That loose fabric tends to twist, and bunch, and wedgify. Constant realignments are required. (This is especially true with the "bubble-butt" cut of boxer, which uses a spinnaker-like central back panel. The idea is to avoid having any seams line up with the butt-crack, but all that extra cloth just crawls up in there anyway, to disastrous effect.)
Containment. That simple slit of a fly on traditional boxers encourages a phenomenon I will term "flop-out." Some boxer shorts seek to rectify this with a button enclosure, but a button is the last thing you care to deal with when you urgently need to urinate. Boxer briefs use the much more effective and user-friendly Y-front.
Also mentioned in the article was the strange trend in the preppie era to allow the legs of (usually plaid) boxers to "peek out" below the bottom of one's shorts. Although I'm sure I was guilty of this sartorial offense, now I see it as quite disturbing. Is that any better than the current trend among teen hipsters to reveal the tops of their drawers by wearing their trousers low?
Support. The obvious, yet oft-unspoken flaw with traditional boxers is their lack of cuppage. They are useless for athletic events, and can even be a hindrance. (An acquaintance refers to the "tunnel" created by wearing boxers under soccer shorts. Via this tunnel, one's testicles can gain sudden and direct access to the world outside.) Boxer briefs hold your goods in place and out of sight.
Stability. Traditional boxers never sit still. They are forever riding up above the waistband of your pants, or slipping down below it. That loose fabric tends to twist, and bunch, and wedgify. Constant realignments are required. (This is especially true with the "bubble-butt" cut of boxer, which uses a spinnaker-like central back panel. The idea is to avoid having any seams line up with the butt-crack, but all that extra cloth just crawls up in there anyway, to disastrous effect.)
Containment. That simple slit of a fly on traditional boxers encourages a phenomenon I will term "flop-out." Some boxer shorts seek to rectify this with a button enclosure, but a button is the last thing you care to deal with when you urgently need to urinate. Boxer briefs use the much more effective and user-friendly Y-front.
Also mentioned in the article was the strange trend in the preppie era to allow the legs of (usually plaid) boxers to "peek out" below the bottom of one's shorts. Although I'm sure I was guilty of this sartorial offense, now I see it as quite disturbing. Is that any better than the current trend among teen hipsters to reveal the tops of their drawers by wearing their trousers low?
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Purple Hope?
Peggy Noonan sees a potential groundswell emerging for a third party to cater to the purples out there. Money quote:
Their idea is that the two parties are too polarized to govern well. It is certainly true that the level of partisanship in Washington seems high. Nancy Pelosi seems to be pretty much in favor of anything that hurts Republicans, and Ken Mehlman is in favor of anything that works against Democrats. They both want their teams to win. Part of winning is making sure the other guy loses, and part of the fun of politics, of any contest, of life, can be the dance in the end zone.
She continues with the litany of concerns by many Americans that are not being met, from spending to security. Given her background and her paper, she is, of course, speaking largely to the current schism in the GOP. She doesn't feel it necessary to include the erosion of civil liberties as one of the current hot-button issues about which Americans are concerned. She also doesn't address the large uncommitted center that dislike Kennedy liberalism as much as the religious right or Bush-style incompetence. But I couldn't agree more that the time is ripe for a third option. She refers to a nascent web group called Unity '08 who has the following mission, "By electing a Unity Ticket to the White House, Unity08 plans to force the country’s Democratic and Republican leaders to cease their runaway focus on the issues of outlying special-interest groups and once again align with the aspirations and will of average Americans."
Sounds like an excellent idea where I may be able to find a home. I'll be following up.
Their idea is that the two parties are too polarized to govern well. It is certainly true that the level of partisanship in Washington seems high. Nancy Pelosi seems to be pretty much in favor of anything that hurts Republicans, and Ken Mehlman is in favor of anything that works against Democrats. They both want their teams to win. Part of winning is making sure the other guy loses, and part of the fun of politics, of any contest, of life, can be the dance in the end zone.
She continues with the litany of concerns by many Americans that are not being met, from spending to security. Given her background and her paper, she is, of course, speaking largely to the current schism in the GOP. She doesn't feel it necessary to include the erosion of civil liberties as one of the current hot-button issues about which Americans are concerned. She also doesn't address the large uncommitted center that dislike Kennedy liberalism as much as the religious right or Bush-style incompetence. But I couldn't agree more that the time is ripe for a third option. She refers to a nascent web group called Unity '08 who has the following mission, "By electing a Unity Ticket to the White House, Unity08 plans to force the country’s Democratic and Republican leaders to cease their runaway focus on the issues of outlying special-interest groups and once again align with the aspirations and will of average Americans."
Sounds like an excellent idea where I may be able to find a home. I'll be following up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)