Lordy

Man, it's been awhile since I've posted! I blame Blogger; they went through a format change for their system, which, in theory, qualifies as an improvement, but in practice makes it a bit more difficult to navigate through their system, at least relative to the older version.

So, I was in the position of either learning to wend my way through a new CMS or just not blogging, and, obviously, made my choice on that. Ha!

It's frickin' cold these days, but am glad that the radiators have been on. Still, it seems like there'll be precious little Fall this year, relative to an onrush of Winter. Since last year's Winter was comparatively mild, I guess we're due, but still, BRRR!

I got a new laptop, which has been nice; I've been sorely in need of one after dropping my last one years ago, and not being able to justify getting a new one for years (at the time, I'd just gotten a new PC in the wake of me getting Exene out of my hair, and couldn't really justify getting a new PC and a replacement laptop in one swoop!)

But I'm really enjoying having a laptop again, since it lets me write wherever I'm at, obviously.

Anyway, onward and upward.

Yawn

I'm finally coming out of my Olympic torpor. *yawn* Back to the real world, or what passes for it in this day and age.

That Paul Ryan graduated from Miami the same year I did. Never saw him, however. He reminds me of "Lloyd Braun" from SEINFELD.

Olympian

I'm transfixed as ever by the Olympics. I love the Olympics. So, I might as well throw productivity out the window for the next 14 days or so, because I'm gonna be all over the Olympics, as I always am. I might comment on things like, I dunno, the Women's Synchro Diving (wtf was with Canada getting the silver? They weren't fully synched! They stole it from Italy! Avenge Tania Cagnotto!)

Avenge! Mmm....

Wrong Wing

I'm tired of the endless obstructionism and shrill posturing of the Right in this country. It's ridiculous, and has kept the country from moving forward (that is, progressing) on any number of issues. It's why we're lagging on a host of things while our First World cousins in Europe and elsewhere are leaving us behind. Now, I know the exceptionalist propaganda line where we blow smoke up our own asses is well in place, the whole "envy of the world" bullshit (as much bullshit as the idea that this is somehow a classless society that is highly socially mobile), I know that's all going like gangbusters as usual.

But the thing is, when has the Right actually been RIGHT about anything? When have conservatives been on the mark? Their blend of rigid thinking, dogmatism, and closed mindedness has never, ever been a path to progress. Quite the opposite, really. And how far back should we go to demonstrate this?

The trend toward Know-Nothingism is so bad in today's GOP that people who absolutely are/were Republicans 20 years ago are afraid to call themselves Republicans today, because they're embarrassed by this trend. They tend to call themselves "Libertarians" today, which is really just a smokescreen for saying that you're a Republican who realizes that the GOP has gone off the deep end -- it's no accident that the long demise of so-called "moderate Republicans" that began in the 60s paralleled the emergence of so-called "Libertarians" -- it became a shelter for those folks who found themselves exiled from the GOP.

Anyway, the conservatives are nearly always wrong -- and I just threw the "nearly" in there to be nice (a problem we liberals tend to have). The trend toward Know-Nothingism is staggering -- their ideology has ballooned up around them and colors their view to the extent that they're willing to go after science, itself, because it's challenging their political reality? Is that how bad it's gotten? Good fucking lord. It's like having somebody's crazy uncle at the steering wheel, refusing to let anybody else drive.

The reactionary response is this: if reality doesn't fit the theory, change reality. THAT is their approach, in a nutshell. And that's how an entire ideological industry has sprung up to ensure that Right-thinking people don't go "wrong" -- which is to say, that they are protected from their lying eyes by ideological bullshit.

Pick an issue, and lay out the reactionary position on it, versus the liberal, and you'll see what I mean.

Evolution: The Right doesn't believe in it, supports creationism/intelligent design. The scientific community has found the evidence for evolution increasingly persuasive going back to the 19th Century!!

Global Warming: The Right doesn't believe in it. The scientific community overwhelmingly finds evidence supporting it.

Gays: The Right thinks it's a choice, born out of temptation by Satan, no doubt. Again, the science is increasingly showing that homosexuality is genetically derived. (Posting that one because they're afraid to do this kind of research in the US, given that Gay is to the American Reactionary what Jew is to Nazi.

Taxes: The Right still peddles supply side theory and accompanying snake oil, even though the economic evidence overwhelmingly points to the utter failure of this as an engine of robust, meaningful, long-term growth.

Vaccination: The Right increasingly fears and resents public health programs that have been demonstrated to work. Because of the nonsense about vaccination, we're seeing resurgences of whooping cough and measles. Cause and effect, you fucktards.

Universal Suffrage: Reactionaries are uncomfortable with democracy, especially when it leads to outcomes that stand in their way, so they throw in for voter suppression as a way of countering it, because they don't want everybody to get a vote, whether it's minorities or women. The Right's view on this is very clear -- whether it's voter ID laws, poll taxes, fire hoses, or throwing elections -- they are hostile to democracy. And they're wrong to be that way (and that fear goes back to the pre-Enlightenment era).

Slavery: The reactionary view of slavery was that is was a-okay, ordained by the Bible. The progressive/liberal view was that all people were created equal, and that slavery was an unconscionable evil. The Right was a-okay with slavery.

I could go on and on and on. The conservative view was that Earth was the center of the universe. THAT was the conservative view, until Copernicus and Galileo were like "Uh, wait, dudes, you know what..?" On and on. An unobstructed path of wrongness.

This is why the GOP is going after science, itself. There is, in the back of their dogmatic brains, this fear that they're wrong, and the only way they can combat this is to attack science, itself. With what, exactly? Oh, that's right: ideology, rhetoric, and religion. Those are their weapons, delivered with characteristic zeal and anger. Again, the Crazy Uncle hypothesis, drowning out everybody else in the room with his braying.

Enough is enough. Liberals screw themselves over by trying to be ecumenical, trying to be tolerant, and being uncomfortable with, well, dogmatism. But they need to be willing to call bullshit on the bullshit when they see it, and to act on it. If nothing else, to leave the Know-Nothings behind in their ideological hog wallow, and move forward (again, the p-word, progress, comes into play, here).

Countries that don't have their heads up their asses are progressing; our country is being held captive by the least-rational, least-tolerant, least-informed, least-reasonable reactionaries who pander to the very worst impulses in people for the sake of momentary political gain. Enough, already. Americans are becoming a laughingstock as we stagger down this ideological dead-end, captive to a policy elite who actually have no good answers for ANYTHING, because they're simply dead wrong -- they are informed not by evidence or science, but by ideology, which is the bathtub gin of philosophy.

Enough, already. Let's move forward, America, and stop walking backwards with our eyes closed, going "la la la la I can't hear you" with reality. Keep doing that and we're going to go right off a cliff.

Trippin'

The boys still talk about the trip we took the other week -- B1 talks about different things he saw, B2 talks about the hotels we visited and the animals we saw, and they both tell me how they "miss the trip." It's cute. I was pleased how smoothly it went, without any hitches along the way. It was a resounding success; everybody had a blast, and the boys didn't once mention Exene -- not the entire time. I would periodically call her so she could talk to the boys, and they could tell her what they'd been up to, but they were content to be on the trip with me, even going solo. And the weird thing for me is that, since Exene never drove on any of our trips (she refuses to drive), there was no qualitative difference between this trip for me and any other, in terms of driving, since, had she been there, I'd STILL be the one driving over 3700 miles by myself! Baha!

Higgs

I'm amused by this clip of Brooklynites (some hipsters, some just New Yorkers) trying to guess what the Higgs Boson is. I think only one of them actually knows. My 10-year-old knows more about it, thanks to me talking to him about it a few years ago, when it came up!

Stormy

Man, we had some trippy weather today -- this fierce storm blasted through Chicago literally out of the blue today, around midday. Fiercest storm I've seen in the city in years. The wind picked up and it blasted through. It didn't last long, but it came on really quickly, and the wind was amazingly strong, felt like it was nearing microburst levels. Nothing like what creamed the Mid-Atlantic states, for sure, but still, pretty impressive. It's almost like this wild weather, supercharged by rampant, I dunno, elevated heat levels by a, hmm, changing climate, is becoming the "new normal" for the world these days. I wonder how many wildfires, derechos, droughts and what-not will have to be endured before American politicians embrace the scientific community's evidence-based findings about climate change. Clearly we're not there, yet. Maybe if the South and Southwest all burn down and their coasts flood (as their inland areas dry up), maybe then they'll stop chugging the Kool-Aid pimped out by the oil industry about global warming. Or maybe they'll just think it's End Times(tm) and will get even more loopy.

Yellowstoned

I'm still recuperating from a week in Yellowstone; I road-tripped with the boys there. They had a blast, although it was a helluva drive (all told, I drove >3700 miles, round trip!) But I thought it was worth it for the boys to get a sense of just how big this country is. I've been out west before, but have never driven the distance. Anyway, they loved it, had a lot of fun. We saw bison, elk, ospreys, coyotes, ravens, grebes, etc. I heard a pack of wolves one morning, too. Good times! B1 really loved the geysers and hot springs, was fascinated by them. I took over 1000 pix with my Nikon, while B1 took lots of shots with his own camera. Yellowstone was beautiful, although the ghostly remains of trees from the '88 wildfire were all over the place. That must have been one serious conflagration, because you could see those dead trees amid the sea of green, and some hillsides and mountain faces were still on that long, slow road to recovery.

Butterflying

Had a butterfly land on me yesterday. Butterflies love landing on me. B1 pointed it out, said "Daddy, there's a butterfly on you!" It hung out on my jacket for a bit, before flying off and then briefly landing on my back, and then flitting away. Go figure.

Avenge Me!

I took the boys to see "The Avengers" over last weekend -- so, that makes it the first time since the original "Star Wars" movies that I've seen a movie three times on the big screen. I just wanted them to be able to see it on the big screen, with the great sound. They enjoyed it, although they still relate more to the animated version I've showed them on DVD.

Speaking of the movie, I saw the drugstore clerk again, and mentioned having seen the movie. He waxed lyrical about it, particularly about the Hulk, breathlessly speculated that the sequel would feature more Hulk. He knew his Marvel, though, since we were talking about the Thanos cameo at the end, and what that would mean for the sequel (in a word, trouble -- watch out, Avengers! Thanos will fuck you UP!) I'm kinda hoping Kang appears at some point -- Kang is one of my favorite villains, and was always getting after the Avengers. Ultron could be a good one, too, if they did it right. Or Graviton. Anyway, we'll see. I just hope the makers of the movie are able to mine what made the first one great and run with that in the sequel.

Eclipsed

B1 was really stoked about the partial eclipse last night, and more so that I was able to snap a few pictures of it (below). He was thrilled by that, and I was happy that I was actually able to see it, given how low in the sky it was. One of the advantages of living in a high-rise! The ghost image was from my double-paned windows, alas. But the image of the eclipse came through very nicely.

Off to the Races

I saw that news blurb about how more non-white babies are being born than white babies and grimaced. The people saddled with racism are going to be having a field day with that, going apeshit as they fret about this. Between that and everything else that's dragged the GOP into looneyland, it's not going to be pretty. Forget notions of E Pluribus Unum and what-not; no, Whitey is gonna be going crazier than usual over this latest demographic trend, with doubtless more strident calls to save "the white race" from the non-white hordes. Lordy.

And with Obama as President, it's going to be even worse, in terms of the tone of the rhetoric of the Right. Not pretty. It's embarrassing to think that racism would still be part of people's mental makeup in the 21st Century. Like when you think of all the things a person has to face in this century, all the things to deal with, being a racist is even more pathetic -- in 1912 or 1812, I can see it, but in 2012? Embarrassing as hell. And this latest news is going to fan the fires of those rearguard racists. Fear is at the heart of all racism (and, really, all conservative politics -- hell, that's been borne out in research).

Speaking of fear, the city's all aflutter over the NATO Summit, which is starting today. Supposedly thousands of protesters have bused into the city over the past couple of days, and the city's on alert to make sure nothing happens. We'll see if anything does. I'm thinking it'll be a tempest in a teapot, honestly; if this were Berlin or Brussels, I could imagine a lot of fervent protest about NATO, but in Chicago? Honestly? I don't see it really happening. But we'll see, I guess. The summit's supposed to be all weekend.

Avengers: Animated

Having "Avengers" on the brain since watching the movie a couple of times (yeah, I saw it again, and liked it as much the second time!) I picked up the "Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes" animated series (four volumes, Season 1), and have enjoyed it (as have my boys). B1 likes Cap and Hawkeye in particular, while B2 likes Hulk. Thor, my favorite Avenger, is well-represented in it. The show is entertaining, mixing bang-up action with nice, drawn-out  narrative arcs that are atypical in American animated shows. I appreciate that, and the writing is good -- it doesn't have the gravitas of the Justice League series from years ago, but it has good animation and entertaining banter between the characters. There are great lines that are just funny, and good battle sequences. They may not be as perfectly drawn and kinetically awesome as the best of the DC animated shows, they are still fun to watch. There's a scene when Thor and Wasp confront MODOK, and it cracks me up -- Thor is transfixed by MODOK's appearance, repeatedly commenting on his giant head even as he's fighting him. Cracks me up. Anyway, the show is way better than I expected it to be. I'm enjoying it, which means it's likely to be canceled soon, given that any show I like tends to end up canceled. Marvel has been hit-or-miss with its animated fare, unlike DC, who had Bruce Timm to anchor their productions, but this Avengers series is definitely good stuff.

Her Radiance?

Okay, so this commercial just freaked me out. This chick just gains these godlike powers to blink out of existence everybody who's in her way? Creep macking on her? *POOF* People ahead of her in line at the club? *POOF* Chicks talking to the guy she's set her sights on? *POOF* The blithe way she just strolls up and says "Hi" to that guy, after all of these people she's evaporated? The guy should be freaked out and asking whether she's some monstrous alien and/or goddess of death or something. And what also bugs me: she deletes the people waiting in line BEHIND her, too. WTF? Why?

Avengers Assembled

I saw "The Avengers" last night, and was greatly impressed! It's the best blockbuster I've seen in years. It's been a long time since I've been that impressed with one of those big budget kinds of enterprises, but this one delivered. And that's in spite of Joss Whedon's screenwriting, which I'm never fond of -- but I have to give him credit for this one -- it definitely delivered the goods. I saw the 2D version with the Sony digital imaging, which was incredibly crisp, breathtakingly clear. The movie fired cleanly on all cylinders, even with a thinly written plot (and, to be honest, there was very much a sense of stretching a pretty thin concept very far to hold it together, but the result, rather than a mess, was something snare drum-tight). The actors carried much of the load -- I have to credit the whole cast for making it work, for filling in the weaknesses within the story with good performances all around.

But the movie itself was just literal dynamite -- exhilarating and fun. I was never bored watching it, despite it being at least two hours long. It all worked. Loki was well-played as the villain, and all the heroes did their parts. The tech components were dazzling -- the SHIELD Helicarrier was impressive as hell. The CGI guys earned their bones in this movie.

The jewel in the CGI crown was the Hulk, who was impressive as hell. I've never been a fan of the Hulk, but they absolutely made every scene with the Hulk sizzle, as he's bashing the hell out of whatever's in his way, whether it's Thor or Loki or alien hordes. It was very impressive, and they even gave Hulk the best comedic moments of it (including a laugh-out-loud beatdown of Loki that had me howling).

I loved the Avengers comic as a kid, so I was really worried that they'd butcher it on the big screen, but those worries were shelved by this movie, which couldn't fail to impress. Again, it's a blockbuster, so I watch it with "blockbuster rules" -- I'm not expecting Shakespeare when I watch a blockbuster, but I'm also very picky about blockbusters (for example, "Inception" actually bored the hell out of me, and I've groused about that before, although I seem to be the only person living who actually didn't love that movie) -- but "The Avengers" was just fabulous fun.

Of the actors, only Hemsworth's Thor felt like he was dragging a little, and even he grew on me throughout it. He looked the part, but I felt like he was behind the other actors in their portrayals of their respective heroes. Makes me laugh to see Black Widow supplant the Wasp as one of the founding members of the Avengers, and, of course, how Giant-Man is nowhere in the mix. I think those were good choices (and, besides, with Paltrow cameoing as Pepper, that's about as much WASP as one can take in a movie).

Anyway, I really enjoyed that movie on a level that I've not enjoyed blockbusters since I don't even know when. Well worth it. I'm gonna catch it again.

Oh, and the Thanos teaser at the end was even more fun. I actually exclaimed "Whoa!" out loud, and cackled.

Avenged Sevenfold

I think I may catch "The Avengers" after work tomorrow. I need to indulge my long-dormant Marvel fanboy self. I collected a lot of AVENGERS, back in the day, most of which I still have, stashed away in storage. I dug some of them out, let B1 check out a few issues. Amazing to think that they're from 1977 -- they're 35 years old! OMG! I always took very good care of my old comics (although I lost about 2/3 of my childhood comics collection when my folks had carelessly left them in a musty basement in one of their properties when I was away at college. Thankfully, the ones kept in Mylar bags had weathered that debacle, and I was able to recover them, once I'd realized where my folks had put them).

Anyway, I figure I'll catch the flick, since it looks like it should be halfway interesting. I really hope they do a sequel with either Ultron or the Absorbing Man or Taskmaster (yeah, right -- no chance of that). That would be fun. The problem with doing superhero movies is for all the non-fans of comics, they have to ladle in the exposition so the people know what the hell is going on, who Villain X is. They'll probably do Kang or Mandarin as the villain in any sequel.

Hulking

I had to share an amusing exchange at the drugstore: ahead of me in line was this guy talking to this tattooed gay Latino, who was talking excitedly about the upcoming "Avengers" movie, and how he was ready to watch the Hulk kick everybody's ass. As an old-school Marvel fan, I had to chime in that I thought Iron Man could probably take out the Hulk, but the gay guy would have none of it, saying "The Hulk kicks EVERYONE'S ass! Iron Man! Superman! Thor! Everybody! And do you know why?" and I said "Why?" (passing over that Superman's from DC, not Marvel) and he said "Because he's FULL of pure emotion. He's pure, unstoppable emotion." and I said "Sure, when he gets pissed off enough, Hulk can beat anybody, but Thor could fight Hulk to a standstill. He's the Thunder God. He's got Mjolnir, his Uru hammer." and that gave the Latino pause, and he said "Mmm. Yes, Thor versus the Hulk WOULD be a very good fight. Hmm. I like Thor." and I said "He does have a certain Asgardian charm." and the guy said "You know what it is about Thor? It's the CAPE. I loooooove his cape. But I love the Hulk MORE. He's got SUCH big muscles!"

Anyway, had to share that before I forget it, as it was an amusing Chicago type exchange. I had to pipe up, since it's so rare to actually get to talk up comic bookage these days! Baha!

NATO, Running, Mannn

Haven't been on in a few days, alternately too busy, too bored, etc. to post. May's here already? WTF? I have this weird sense of time speeding along and dragging, as well. Can't believe summer's almost here. The city's getting all squirrelly about the upcoming NATO summit, expecting protests and what-not. I can't honestly imagine much happening, despite the breathless intonations of worry by the local newsies, etc. I mean, of all the things for Americans (particularly Chicagoans) to riot about, is NATO really high on that list? I'm just not seeing it. I mean, May Day passed comparatively quietly over here, so, barring something extraordinary, I'm thinking NATO will come and go quietly as well. If we were in Berlin, I might say there's a chance of big protests, but in the Midwest? Nah.

Blogger changed their format, bending the knee to their Google masters. In making it more Google-friendly than it was before, they've altered the layout of their site, which kinda bugs me. It feels less user-friendly to me. The posted entries look the same, of course, but the setup isn't quite right.

Did I mention that Exene got into the NY Marathon. She's predictably stoked about that. She'll be running three marathons in a row this fall, like September, October, November. That's in addition to doing an Iron Man triathlon this summer. That cray-cray. One of the many reasons for divorcing her was the endless hours she spent running, trusting me to work full-time and tend the boys while she was off running. Running is a hobby for those with a lot of time on their hands, without a lot of obligations (or with a partner willing to take care of the obligations while that person is off running -- especially if a person is doing serious distance-running, where the mileage piles up). Because in addition to the running, there's also the down-time as the running gets back and rests after their run. She's hoping to get B1 to run, to repeat her own pathology in him, but I don't think he'll be into it, in truth. Because it's not actually fun. You ever see runners at marathons? Even the elite ones look like they're in agony, let alone the tens of thousands of punters who are running in their wake.

Although this is definitely NOT Exene, I have noticed runner chicks who run while fully made up. That seems just insane to me. Makeup while running?? WTF? It looks bizarre. My nickname for them is "Spiffs."

Conandrum

So, I watched "Conan the Barbarian" on DVD, surprised to see that there is some extended footage in this one, something like four minutes -- first time I'd ever seen those scenes, which had been cut in the US release I'd seen a zillion times. The two main additions are a chat about springtime between Conan and Subotai, and a kind of trippy extension of the Princess loping around with Conan in the Mountain of Power, on his way to dispatching Thulsa Doom. While the former was kind of startling, the latter was really odd. There is a sense that the Princess has some serious Father issues, since she goes from leaving her father, King Osric, to traipse after Thulsa Doom and be his bride/concubine/whatever, and then, realizing that Doom is going to do her in, that spell is broken and then she's apparently enthralled by Conan -- not exactly interacting with him in the scenes, but sort of just ambling around nearby, and semi-worshipping him, until he takes her by the hand and carries her over the rocky terrain, away from the ruin of Doom's temple. It's really odd, more so since I'd never seen this extended version before -- the Princess's presence in it is distracting, since she was always more than a little loopy, and she's clearly loopy, still (and, since, in the deleted scenes, we see the apparent assassination of King Osric by his men -- this doesn't make it in the final movie, it's at least assumed that the Princess is going to be Conan's lady friend). Trippy stuff, and I can see why they clipped it from the American release -- I mean, I always found it odd how she basically vanished after the Battle of the Mounds, but this extended version is bizarre -- imagine the Princess doing a silent interpretive dance sequence while Conan is going about his bloody business, and you'll get a sense of the vibe her presence in the final scene conveys.

Anyway, besides that, it was fun to watch again -- one of the things I always enjoyed about the movie is director John Milius's meticulous attention to little details, how he showed so much and didn't tell -- definitely a hallmark of him having written so many screenplays in his day, having that sense of how to frame a scene. That is one of the things that brings such satisfaction to the movie. For example, in two key sequences:

Conan at the Temple Gathering

When Conan is in disguise, trying to sneak into Doom's temple, there is a great sequence here, where you see Rexor and Thorgrim come out like they're looking for somebody. Already, the trap is springing on Conan, but it's very much shown without being told. Conan keeps brandishing the jade snake decoration from the Serpent Tower, thinking it's his pass for getting deep into the place, but a temple guard takes it, and you see him walking through the foreground with the decoration, getting the attention of Rexor and Thorgrim. All while the music is playing, and you can see the jaws of the trap closing in on clueless Conan, but it's done purely through imagery. Love how that scene sets up.

People Stew

The revelation that the Set cultists are cannibals is again just shown, without any dialogue -- you see the people bodies hanging in the hellish kitchen of Doom, without too much attention being drawn to it. And the "People Stew" is poured, and these bearers then carefully walk the glop up to the Orgy Room. The attention to continuity is marvelous here, as Milius is very attentive to this, showing the progression of those bearers all the way there, and even showing them leaving -- the effect of this is to integrate the pacing of the scene like clockwork, to create a very real sense of presence. He didn't have to do that, he could have just cut to the Orgy Room, but he actually walked those bearers all the way there, and then on their merry way, their task accomplished. It's very precise, and it's very well done (and from a production standpoint, it reflects an attention to detail that most directors would finesse).

Unfortunately, I can't find either of these clips on YouTube to illustrate it, but if you watch it, you'll see. Milius sweats the details, and I think those details are one of the real delights of the movie from the viewpoint of the audience. He does that throughout the movie. Continuity breeds credibility in moviemaking.

Barbarous

I was kind of pissed the other day, because I was trying to find a DVD for "Conan the Barbarian" (1982) -- the REAL one, and all I could find was the remake. Now, I haven't seen the remake, but I highly doubt that it could hold a candle to the original movie. In the larcenous drive to remake movies, when I'd heard they were doing that with "Conan," that felt the most quixotic to me, simply because the original has its own peculiar alchemy to it. Although critics sniffed about the violence and it having fascist overtones (or undertones) and saw something sinister in Austrian Arnold beheading Black James Earl Jones, to me, it's just a good fantasy movie. One of the best, in truth. From 1982 until 2001 (when LOTR came out), "Conan" reigned as one of the only true successes in fantasy moviemaking -- it had the right epic feel, had great battle scenes, and even its neo-Nietzschean ethos fits like a gauntlet. The movie is fun. Thulsa Doom is a great villain, Arnold is great as Conan (even his character's silences are kind of endearing and perfect -- I mean, the guy IS a barbarian, right?) Subotai, Valeria, Subotai, Thorgrim (sp), Conan's dad, Mako as the Wizard, even Max Von Sydow phoning it in as King Osric (if memory serves) -- all of it flows really well together. The deliberately low-key way they did magic was an inspired touch, and, I think, it one of the things that lent "Conan" its special character -- the magic is there, but it's done in such a low-key, matter-of-fact way, it works perfectly with the story, without causing a distraction.

I first saw this movie as a kid, with my family, in a drive-in theater! How retro is that? But my liking of it didn't stem from some nostalgia for that; rather, I appreciated it more over time, as I'd caught it over the years. Maybe the great soundtrack is part of it (heh, I actually have the soundtrack on CD), conveying that grand scope that's vital to any fantasy movie.

My only complaint is that the end doesn't quite work -- after the high point of the Battle of the Mounds, it's kind of a letdown when Conan finally dispatches Thulsa Doom. All of that buildup throughout the movie, and then the final confrontation is kind of meh, especially after all that had come before it. But it's only a slight complaint; I love the movie.

So, I'd had it on VHS over the years, and, when I replaced that with a DVD player, I hadn't gotten around to getting a DVD copy of "Conan," figuring I'd eventually get there. Then that damned remake came out, and now that's displaced the far worthier original -- for a whole generation of kids, THAT is "Conan," now. Ridiculous! Fortunately, I was able to get it from Amazon, and made a point to, before it somehow disappeared. I'm looking forward to catching it again.

Lockout (2012)

I caught "Lockout" on a whim. Not a particularly good or bad movie, really -- kind of a glib action movie, I guess. I came in with low expectations, and those were met. Haha! Is that a success or a failure? I don't know. The story was thinly-written, and the characters were, too. Luc Besson was producer, and some of his wry hand at action movie-making was certainly evident in it. Not nearly as good as one of my all-time favorite trash movies, "Deep Rising" (1998) -- which still holds my personal record for one of the most entertaining bits of cinematic fluff, ever. "Lockout" aspires to rise to the level of "Deep Rising," but falls short. It's like "Escape from New York" in space, although it's not nearly in that league. Guy Pearce is in full smartass mode throughout it. One of the things about it that annoyed me is the movie is ostensibly set in 2079, but it's full of pop culture references that are aimed squarely at today's audience -- and, really, last century's. It would have been nice for some of the characters to be like "Huh?" when one of those references got glibly tossed out.

Romney, etc.

I'm amused at watching Romney try to reposition himself for the general electorate. It's ironic, because, as I've written before, Romney was only a little to Obama's right, politically -- Obama the 80s Republican masquerading as a Democrat, and Romney, the "What do I have to say to win?" candidate.

Obama's the most conservative Democrat to be in the White House in a generation -- he makes Bill "Third Way" Clinton look like a liberal by comparison. So, in theory, Romney was the most likely candidate to be able to bamboozle enough voters into voting for him, for failing to be able to see the difference between the two. And, in truth, that's how it was, at least before the primaries. For all the Right's hysterical howling and strident sermonizing, Obama and Romney were very, very close politically. And, in likelihood, they still are.

But, in order to navigate the GOP primaries, Romney had to drink the Kool-Aid. He had to quaff it to be able to squeak enough votes to secure the nomination. The GOP has butchered its brand by pandering to their reactionaries (sorry, should I say theocratic fascists?) who are hell-bent on pushing their moral and social agenda on the rest of the country. This, to the detriment of the GOP -- polls are showing that 58% of Americans view the GOP unfavorably, with only 36% viewing the GOP favorably. By way of comparison, 50% of Americans view the Democrats favorably (and I hasten to add that this isn't something the Dems should be proud of -- they've been sucking royally, too; they just are more in step with what the majority of Americans want than the GOP).

So, a candidate who should have been a real contender against Obama is forced to go into the general election with Kool-Aid stains on his teeth.

The GOP brand is so soured nowadays that I know plenty of people who were diehard Republicans a decade or more ago who are now claiming to be Libertarians! (the same folks who would have scoffed at that label if it had been thrown their way back then) These are folks who were generationally Republican, proudly so. Now they are hemming and hawing and backing away from the Republican label. Why? Because the brand is toxic. And it has been made so by the reactionaries.

The GOP is captive to the headless beast it has created, and it's going over a cliff. The wages of ideology, alas! What sucks, from my perspective, is that in their efforts to appease these right-wingdings, the Democrats of today have stepped to the Right, themselves, to the extent that they resemble Reagan Republicans -- which, of course, makes them seem like raging socialists to today's Kool-Aiders in the GOP.

So, it's going to be a "choice" between Republican Lite (Obama), or Friendly Fascism (Romney). There it is. Overall, it's not going to be good for the country -- the remaining GOP dead-enders will burn the whole place down if they can, rather than compromise, and they certainly have no intention to let America be more tolerant, compassionate, diverse, intellectual, scientific, just, fair, open-minded -- no, that's not what they're about.

It would be nice for the Democrats to grow some balls and say to these nutballs that it's okay for the GOP to be bigoted, cruel, provincial, anti-intellectual, unjust, corrupt, close-minded demagogues -- but that the rest of the country (and the world) isn't going to pay for their militant ignorance -- their their whacked out views deserve no place in public policy-making. But wishing for the Democrats to have some balls is like asking for the sun to rise in the west.

End result, Romney's going to be screwed going up against Obama, the GOP is going to try even harder to find their Fuhrer for the next presidential election, Obama will continue his Republican Lite politics, and the very real needed progress in American politics won't happen. The choice is treading water (Obama) or sinking (Romney); America will vote for treading water. But it's still not progress.

42

Wow, I'm 42. How'd THAT even happen? Only 8 years from 50? Sheesh. That's crazy. Obviously, a lot can happen in 8 years -- B1 will be 18 (*choke*). Anyway, crazy stuff. B1 was sweet; he could tell I was frustrated about stuff yesterday (nothing to do with my birthday, just job stuff), and as I was taking the boys to their sitter, he gave me a comforting hug. It was such a sweet, compassionate gesture. I told him I appreciated that. It was clearly a hug for hug's sake.

I didn't take off, didn't do the whole "work on the birthday" thing. How Stoic of me. Baha!

I baked a German chocolate cake for myself; no candles, no birthday wishes. Just cake the boys and I shared. Anyway, onward and upward for my 42-year-old self!

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

I saw "The Cabin in the Woods" yesterday, and I don't think it was really the Second Coming of Horror that it was billed as being. I understand that when Joss Whedon cranks something out, his dedicated fan base/cult, much like the fans of Wes Anderson, will breathlessly gather and sing the praises for his work, rendering it critically bulletproof.

Not going to go into the movie, lest there be spoilers to it -- but while I enjoyed the movie well enough, I wasn't blown away by it. It's hard to put it into words, exactly. I would classify it more as a horror-comedy than a de facto horror movie (although there were certainly horrific moments to it, they're all fairly wryly delivered, with that trademark Whedonian smirking smugness framed by an affably earnest self-consciousness that characterizes a lot of his work, and is likely why it's popular with a given group of people).

I didn't find it terribly surprising, found it hard to really shocked by anything in it. I dunno. I think it'll be a tempest in a teapot; it comes off as a kind of critical takedown of Horror as a genre without actually getting at what's horrific (and cathartic) about Horror. The very nature of Horror implies an ineffability, a sense of the sublime -- it's hard to be snidely aware of the sublime, really, and this movie tries to kind of square that circle -- to try to invoke this otherworldly dread while at the same time smugly having a "Relax, I'm just joking" kind of mindset to it that undermines the former.

There are enough Whedon groupies out there for this to likely do reasonably well, or be a cult movie or whatever. But unlike, say, "Evil Dead," which managed to actually channel some real dread, this movie was just sort of an exercise in something else. Like a group of people congratulating each other on how smart they all are. It's like how nobody thinks advertising (or propaganda) affects them -- if you ever see surveys where people are asked about advertising, nobody ever admits that advertising influences their decision-making.

So there is this multibillion-dollar industry that inundates our world, surrounds and enfolds it, whose entire purpose is to manipulate, cajole, wheedle, seduce, and persuade you -- something as omnipresent as water is to fish -- and you're unaffected by it? Immune to it? Why? Because you're too smart to be affected by something like that, you know when you're being influenced. Riiiight. Pat yourself on the back one more time, as you're off buying whatever it is you were persuaded to buy.

That is what this movie felt like. An hour-and-45-minute mutual back-patting from a creator of a particular type of entertainment to his acolytes -- there's nothing to be afraid of, because we already know everything there is to know about Horror, and we're just too smart to be affected by it, too worldly and jaded to be influenced by something as retrograde and yucky as Horror. Riiiiight.

That said, I enjoyed the movie reasonably well; I just didn't think it was half as smart as it (or its audience) thought it was.

(Laundry) Basket Case

Urg. I've put off laundry all week. Tomorrow morning. Gotta get it done! Normally I'm pretty good about keeping up with it, but this week I just kept putting it off. It's not bad, yet. Four loads, maybe five. But I just don't like getting behind on that.

I've been biking this week, even though it's been frickin' cold. Still, I don't mind getting a jump on my bike season; last year, I rode until November, so, starting in late March/early April means I'll have about eight months of biking this season, assuming my bike endures. I've bitched about it before, but my Trek 7300 has been a constant disappointment to me. Some people love them, but I vastly preferred my old Specialized Hardrock to my Trek, which has proven to be a finicky and high-maintenance set of wheels. And given that I've just been doing city riding with it, not scaling up mountains or anything, I've been disappointed by the fussiness of this bike. I'm sure I've put more than the actual value of the bike into it, in terms of repairs and modifications.

En garde!

Am glad the radiators are still on -- it's been frickin' cold in the city the past week. Usually, "March Madness" kicks in and they turn off the radiators, but it's been cold enough to warrant having the heat on. I've still been biking to work, but have bundled a bit. The real issue is the wind -- those blustery contrary winds are a major buzzkill.

I got the boys a couple more Nerf foam weapons; those are damned fun -- the Marauder sword, which, for a kid, is a tidy two-handed sword (hell, it's a two-handed sword for a grown-up, too, but the blade length is more akin to a broadsword). B2 is decidedly keen for the big sword, which is funny in his hands. B1 is fond of the Battlemaster mace/axe (my Dwarvish boy, naturally). I use the Vantage "short swords" -- which really aren't short swords, but are at least close to fencing swords in length, so I use them that wasy. They are fun; I like them better than the Nerf guns (which are also fun).

But the foam weapons are just a blast, and it's funny to watch the boys go after me with them, or each other. B1, as ever, is the gentle giant, but he has the best "game face" -- his expression is intimidatingly formidable, if you didn't realize what a kind and gentle person he is behind that facade. That serves him well, I've seen.

B2 is, as ever, the wild child, the fighting whirlwind -- speedy and naturally athletic, and prone to whacking you with the sword faster than you can react, or to "dying" dramatically. I swear that B2 enjoys pratfalling as much as he enjoys fighting -- he takes these great dives on the floor. As ever, the flamboyant, scrappy actor. And when they doubleteam me, it's fun, too -- I teach them the rudiments of fencing and kendo, while they try like hell to get me.

Jesus Christ

Easter. Meh. It bores me so much that I can hardly even blog about it. I love Halloween and enjoy Christmas, but Easter? It's just sort of there. I don't do Easter Bunny shenanigans with the boys -- Exene's family usually goes over the top with Easter baskets and what-not, anyway, so I tend to not do it. And since I don't inflict Christianity on the boys, the whole "miracle of the Resurrection" jazz doesn't come into it, either. I mean, call it cynicism or skepticism, but even today, people believe that Elvis was still alive, or Jim Morrison, or whomever, or any number of urban legends.

We're supposed to believe that a few thousand years ago, when people were eminently more reasonable, intellectual, and rational than they are today (*choke*) that whatever happened to Jesus was the literal truth that actually happened? 100% factual? Right. It's like playing a game of Telephone and being forced to accept the answer on down the line....

"I really like cabbage."
"He really likes cabbage."
"I'm related to Charles Babbage?"
"His dad likes to play cribbage."
"His team's going to scrimmage."
"We forgot to get our luggage?"
"I don't have any postage!"
"They're taking me hostage!"

That is everyday human experience, that is how things actually roll. Christianity is no different. Maybe Jesus's followers, piqued at the loss of their prophet at Roman hands, wanted to give him a good Jewish burial, so they went to the crypt where he was kept, rolled the stone aside, and spirited away his body for a proper burial, as a way of sticking it to Rome. Then the ever-excitable Mary Magdalene comes along, sees the rock rolled aside, and puts that whore's brain of hers to work and is like "Holy SHIT! He's been resurrected!" I mean, everybody knows to trust the words of a prostitute, right? They are always reliable and unbiased sources of information about all manner of things. And so it goes.

The empiricist in me always quibbled about the stone being rolled aside -- since when does a spirit need to roll a stone aside, anyway? Insubstantial, right? The only reason the stone's rolled aside is to be able to say "Look! Nobody inside!" Because if the stone hadn't been rolled aside, there'd be the assumption that Jesus's remains were still in there. So, of course the stone's rolled aside. Because the spirit wanted to be sure you believed in the miracle of what had happened. Mmm hmm.

Maybe something happened, but the odds are far more likely that nothing happened, and people, in their typically credible way of being, wove elaborate mental and emotional tapestries around a particular situation in order to make themselves feel better. And, again, as I say, roll the clock back 2000 years or so, and you find people who are even more credulous and superstitious then than they are today, and it becomes not only likely, but an inevitability that something like that happens.

And then the logic of the Big Lie comes into it, where people then depend on the buy-in, or worse, the faith meme comes into it, where people just turn off their powers of reason and uncritically accept the Big Lie without question, and then the snowball can just keep rolling down the mountainside of history, at least until the capacity to reason, reflect, critique, and objectively assess is rediscovered.

Anyway, blah blah blah. Easter. Yeah, got it.

Foodage and Flora

Nearly recovered from the B1 Bug. I wasn't blogging the past couple of days because sickblogging is worse than even everyday blogging. "Still stick. Bleah." You know, that kind of thing.

Going to take the boys grocery shopping today. They're stoked, since I picked up some wheels for the drive. They always love that.

I need to post pix of my saplings; I think I'd intended to do that for awhile, but hadn't gotten around to it. So, here you go...

Clementine and its cousin fruit tree saplings. All of them have come out swinging for spring. They really started growing. I'll have to repot them later this year, is my guess. Part of me is tempted to bonsai these guys, but part is tempted to just let them grow unimpeded. It's still going to take a long time for them. This was all because I'd a particularly good clementine and hadn't wanted to consign the seeds of it to a landfill, by way of the garbage, and wanted to see if I could get any of the seeds to grow. Repeating it with a lemon and an orange, I think. I've had great success with it, and I'm enjoying watching the process continue. The boys are fascinated by it, too. Never really thought about whether I had a green thumb or not, but I guess I do.

KOFF

Still coming out from under the B1 Bug. My voice is all shot from all the coughing I'd been doing. But am gradually getting better.

Koff Koff Hack

I definitely caught B1's bug. The congestion just warehouses itself in the lungs, and you can't cough it out, but the irritation in there compels the coughing, despite taking meds. My voice has dropped about an octave from all the coughing I've done. Bleah.

Flu?

I think I'm catching B1's flu. There's a certain character to an influenza sore throat that is different from rhinovirus sore throats -- the way they present is different. And B1 definitely had the real flu -- it bugs me that one has to distinguish that -- flu (influenza) from "stomach flu" (aka, gastroenteritis, aka [most likely] norovirus), just because people get confused. Not the same diseases, people.

Anyway, I'm definitely coming down with something. We'll see whether it fully presents this weekend or what. I hope my body fights it off. We'll see. Absolutely everybody's been sneezing around work, and that's one of the key ways flu gets spread. *ACHOO*

Right now, it's sore throat, drainage, headache (I never get headaches), and zero appetite. No fever, yet, but we'll see if that creeps in -- B1 had a fever of 100.8, which isn't a super-bad fever, but it was bad enough to wear him down, for sure. It's easy to spot when he's got a fever, as his ears and cheeks flush red, and the general lassitude he shows. For me, it's usually a combination of actually getting the chills -- since I never get cold; and/or loss of appetite and libido (it's true -- my libido checks out when I get sick; that's a sure sign of me being on the mend, as my libido comes right back when I'm on the upswing).

Chicago's definitely back into classic March weather. That heat wave we had passed, and now it's back to the spring chill.

Oh, before I forget! This is super-cool! I told B1 about this, and he was intrigued. I'd already known about that, but it was nice to see some new stuff about it come out. I love the idea that there could be billions of habitable planets even just in our own galaxy. That's fabulous!

Supreme Fallacies

As ever, Paul Krugman gets it right...

Is requiring that people pay a tax that finances health coverage O.K., while requiring that they purchase insurance is unconstitutional? It’s hard to see why — and it’s not just those of us without legal training who find the distinction strange. Here’s what Charles Fried — who was Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general — said in a recent interview with The Washington Post: “I’ve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them.”

Indeed, conservatives used to like the idea of required purchases as an alternative to taxes, which is why the idea for the mandate originally came not from liberals but from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. (By the way, another pet conservative project — private accounts to replace Social Security — relies on, yes, mandatory contributions from individuals.)
So has there been a real change in legal thinking here? Mr. Fried thinks that it’s just politics — and other discussions in the hearings strongly support that perception.

I was struck, in particular, by the argument over whether requiring that state governments participate in an expansion of Medicaid — an expansion, by the way, for which they would foot only a small fraction of the bill — constituted unacceptable “coercion.” One would have thought that this claim was self-evidently absurd. After all, states are free to opt out of Medicaid if they choose; Medicaid’s “coercive” power comes only from the fact that the federal government provides aid to states that are willing to follow the program’s guidelines. If you offer to give me a lot of money, but only if I perform certain tasks, is that servitude?

Yet several of the conservative justices seemed to defend the proposition that a federally funded expansion of a program in which states choose to participate because they receive federal aid represents an abuse of power, merely because states have become dependent on that aid. Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed boggled by this claim: “We’re going to say to the federal government, the bigger the problem, the less your powers are. Because once you give that much money, you can’t structure the program the way you want.” And she was right: It’s a claim that makes no sense — not unless your goal is to kill health reform using any argument at hand.

Reactionary Ideology Trumps Science

This is an appalling study. Basically, it shows that among "conservatives" (I'd call them "reactionaries" in truth), there's been a 28-point drop in their trust in science since the mid-1970s. While liberals and moderates have maintained their same level of trust in science, conservatives went from 63% in around 1974, to around 35% today.

What that says to me is that ideology has eclipsed science within the ranks of conservatives. This is a disastrous turn for them, and reflects the triumph of Know-Nothingism among their ranks. Such a steep decline can't be attributed to the general dumbfuckery of their ranks, either; this is occurring at the elite end of the conservative spectrum, and that means the culprit must be ideology.

The secular religion of ideology has supplanted science among the ranks of conservatives. I've grimly joked that the Right is the American equivalent of the Taliban, but this is puts data behind that idea. It's like Galileo being forced to recant his ideas before the Pope, because they didn't mesh with Church doctrine. And this is where the GOP is? Lordy, it's embarrassing.

And what's more, these ideologues are actually framing public policy -- not based on actual science, but on fucking ideology? So, the rest of the country (and, by extension, the world) is forced to suffer the consequences of their hidebound ideology?

Science and empiricism are about as close to sacred as I get, honestly -- I respect them because they are data-driven, methodological, and they work. Ideology is creepy, it's the snake eating its own tail, and has, at its heart, only "Because I said so" as its justification. Pathetic. Horrific.

For a group to be so blinded by ideology that they turn their backs on something with such a proven track record of success as science? Holy shit. I'd be hugely embarrassed if I were a thinking conservative, honestly. This "brain drain" within their ranks is dreadful, and accounts for the absence of actual ideas from the supposed "Party of Ideas." Another few years of this ideological winnowing of reason and the idea of a "conservative intellectual" will be oxymoronic!

If reality doesn't fit their theories, they throw out reality. *golf applause* What this brain drain points to is that objective science wasn't buttressing their ideological views, so they have stopped trusting it, rather than changing or adapting their views to reflect extant reality. Insanity. Idiocy.

And for what? An ideology. The Way Thinks SHOULD Be(tm) is not the same as The Way Things Actually Are, conservatives! Reality is going to bite you on the ass, whether you acknowledge it or not. That's what's cool about science, why it will always (eventually) beat out ideology.  "Why? Because I said so, that's why." Sorry, but that doesn't pass the intellectual sniff test. You want to embarrass yourselves that way, that's fine; just don't inflict that kind of militant ignorance on the rest of society, please. And what's worse, don't expect the rest of us, those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, to go along with your bullshit.

Supremely Irritating

If the Supreme Court were capable of irony, they'd realize it's ironic in the extreme that these individuals, who themselves benefit from single-payer healthcare (like their peers in Congress), are all set to strike down Obama's tepid quasi-reform. Safely and effectively insured in the manner that the rest of the First World is insured, they can pontificate about healthcare knowing that their own coverage is assured. Marvelous, yes?

I'd love for somebody to actually call them out on this -- again, not that Obamacare is single payer; it's not, unfortunately -- but I guarantee the reactionary justices are all hostile to the idea of single-payer, even as they use it for their own health needs. Ever wonder why the justices tend to live a LONG TIME? Single-payer healthcare -- if their health was entrusted to the free market, they'd not live nearly so long. I mean, they're well-compensated for the work they do, so they could afford to pay for their own healthcare if they had to, but thanks to single-payer, they don't have to, and they enjoy robust health, without having to fear the price tag for it -- just like every citizen in the First World outside of America.

I also wish activists and protesters would call bullshit on Congress for that; the same guys who strenuously oppose healthcare reform as the very ones who enjoy exactly the same kind of healthcare they would deny the rest of the country. At least I'd like to see them refuse that socialistic single payer every Congressman enjoys and pay out of pocket for their healthcare -- or, at the very least, for these supposed representatives to have the same healthcare of their constituents, just to highlight the disparities and inequities of for-profit healthcare.

This issue's not going away; as the Baby Boomers slide ever closer to their mass grave on a banana peel, healthcare is going to loom ever larger. It remains one of the most common causes of personal bankruptcy. The civilized nations have all recognized this and gone the single-payer route, recognizing that safeguarding their people's health is a national security issue. Our country remains the stubborn outlier. Here, you get the care you can afford, and if you can't afford it, tough for you.

The insurance lobby is going to have to go down, one way or another, for reform to actually come about. It needs to be done. So, once Obama's weak-tea, pro-insurance industry, Romneycare-derived plan gets lit up by the Supremes, the problem will continue to loom, and, indeed, to grow ever larger.

(Health)Careless

Looks like the Supremes are gong to scuttle Obamacare, which should be a surprise to exactly no one. The problem I always had with Obamacare is that it was a false solution to an actual problem. The US is the lone outlier in the First World in that it doesn't have national healthcare. Indeed, many Second World and even some Third World nations are going to national healthcare, too. It gets at a fundamental aspect of healthcare: that good health, in a civilized society, is neither a commodity nor a privilege, but is a human right.

Obamacare, for all of the howling of the reactionaries, was a reform that was so business-friendly that Eisenhower's administration could have put it forward. It wasn't socialism, but was, instead, a sloppy kiss to the private insurance industry. And therein was the problem -- the individual mandate, which forces people to buy private health insurance, is, fundamentally, unconstitutional.

By trying to cater to the private insurance industry, Obama sowed the seeds of the ruin of Romneycare...err...Obamacare. Since he was going to encounter rabid, shrill hostility from the Right regardless of what he did, Obama should have been bold and gone for Medicare for All -- single-payer for all Americans. Medicare remains a popular program (even among the rank-and-file of the Right, who seem not to understand that Medicare is from the government when they protest "Keep the government out of my Medicare"). The Right's leadership wants to do away with Medicare, but their rank-and-file enjoy its benefits.

So, strategically, Obama should have made that his program, so the Right's leadership would have to be at odds with their own supporters' preferences as they tried to stop it. And it would have granted healthcare access to all Americans, would've reduced costs, ensured Medicare's solvency, and would have brought tangible benefit to millions. It would've been a bold move, a courageous one, and a just one. He needed to be bold, not timid, because the opposition was going to go after him regardless of what he'd offered.

Instead, Obama dusted off Romney's plan, put his name on it, and foisted that on Americans, hoping it wouldn't step on any of the power players' toes. The result is what we have right now, and it's looking like Obamacare is dead on arrival at the Roberts Supreme Court.

*golf applause*

Cookie

I picked up a few boxes of Thin Mints, it being Girl Scout Cookie season and all. Popped'em in the freezer, for maximum deliciousness. Lordy, they are good. Overpriced and undersupplied (there used to be far more of said cookies in a box), but damned good.

I had the boys most of the weekend, as Exene was doing one of her umpteen races, and wanted to be able to party afterward, apparently. I'd rather have that much more quality time with the boys, although with the weather realizing it was March again, dropping us back to typically chilly temperatures, we didn't do anything summery this weekend.

I did set up things for the summer trip I'm taking the boys on; we're going to Yellowstone. Road trip! They are totally excited for it -- B1 in particular, since he loves anything with volcanoes. He's been looking forward to this for some time. B2 will enjoy it just on general principles; he is keen for me to get a van as our wheels of choice, and was suggesting stuff we could/should bring. He'll likely love the scenery and what-not, and any wildlife we might see. I'm bringing my camera and plenty of rechargeable batteries, as there'll be plenty to see.

Mean Streets?

This is an interesting study.

Psychologist Dr. Harold Takooshian sees strong evidence of the Bystander Effect in Neistat’s bike-theft experiment. “When it comes to this fellow with the bike,” he says, “there are several reasons the people don’t intervene.”
“The first is that they don’t notice what’s going on — many people in the video simply don’t seem to see him. We call that stimulus overload. People in cities are surrounded by much more stimuli, so they filter things out. The second is that they notice him, but what’s happening is ambiguous, so they actively ignore it.” In other words: Why would someone so brazenly steal a bike? There must be an innocent explanation. “The third is that people notice it, but they don’t know what to do. And the fourth is fear — they know they should do something, but they’re afraid to challenge someone with a hacksaw.”
“Apathy,” concludes Dr. Takooshian, “is only a minor factor.”
The first two possibilities, stimulus overload and ambiguity, are both influenced by density, a key indicator of whether people are likely to intervene. It’s easy to understand why urban density leads to stimulus overload and might cause a passerby to miss something. But density — specifically, a space dense with people — heightens ambiguity too, in a very particular way.
“Say you’re in a city, and it looks like someone is about to steal a bicycle,” says Ervin Staub, author of “Overcoming Evil” and a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. “It’s already a somewhat ambiguous situation. Maybe the person is trying to get their own bicycle. But it’s made even more ambiguous because there are many other people around, all these potential helpers, and no one is taking action. That communicates something to you.”
In short: If you see people acting like something is no big deal, you assume the same. It’s the same reason comedy clubs hire professional laughers — we act like the people around us. Staub describes an experiment he once conducted in which two people sit in a room, one of them secretly working for the psychologist. Suddenly there are shouts of distress from a neighboring room. If the psychologist’s helper worries aloud that something is wrong, the subject goes to investigate “100 percent of the time.” But if the helper says he thinks everything is probably fine, three out of four subjects will stay put.

Although, having lived in Chicago for, what, 17 years, I think Chicagoans are far nicer on the whole than people I've encountered in far smaller towns (like where I grew up, for example -- I remember when I first moved to Chicago, being surprised at how much friendlier and talkative Chicagoans were, relative to my experience in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And while the advent of cell phones has probably zoned out a lot of people, relative to what's around them, I still find Chicagoans to be a generally friendly, helpful, and affable lot -- I've seen it said enough times that Chicago is like a giant small town, if that makes any sense. People come and are surprised at the friendly reception they get.

Obviously, there are exceptions -- you throw millions of people together and you will invariably encounter your share of assholes, but they are rarities. At least in my experience.

I always give up my seat on the bus for old people and pregnant women -- I remember back in the 90s, some heavy old lady keeled over on the sidewalk, and Exene and I and two other Chicagoans rushed to help her. Admittedly, I've been on plenty of buses when nobody but me gives up their seat. That does piss me off, but I don't chalk it up to people living in the city that makes this happen, versus people simply not paying attention to their surroundings and/or being jerks.

In all of my years here, I only had one attempt to steal my bike (some kid tried to steal my bike seat -- he'd been trying to jam the seat on his own bike, having forgotten to toggle the quick release on his own bike, because he was nervous. I'd run out and confronted him, said "Kid. Give me back my seat." and he did, then slunk his skinny, ratlike teen self the hell away from there, riding away on his own seatless bike). So, in 17 years, I've had exactly one attempt to steal (part) of my bike. Whereas, when in a small town in Ohio, my college town, I had a bike get almost completely stolen (they took everything but the frame) within a year. Just saying.

I think the necessity of interaction and the cosmopolitan nature of city living requires at least some measure of civility (I'm applying this to Chicago; New Yorkers are a different breed -- bigger city, different rules). Chicagoans are, by and large, a fairly outgoing and affable group of people (I'm resisting da urge ta start tacking in a Chicahgo accent, here!) The essence of suburban living is seclusion and sequestration -- you are surrounded by folks who are, at least superficially, just like you -- the same race, the same socioeconomic class. You don't have to interact with anybody you don't want to. You don't have to give up a seat on the bus for anybody, because, of course, you're not on a bus. You're likely commuting. Alone (of course, because only socialists would carpool). The suburbs are where you don't want surprises; the whole reason you live there is to avoid surprises, to avoid anything you don't like or understand. That certainty of experience is integral to suburban living -- it's why the houses look the same, have the same lawn configuration, people drive the same cars, and even have the same stores and restaurants at the same malls (and it's trippy to me -- you can see that, too -- all the same store chains are representing at every suburb I've ever seen.)

Obviously, I live in one of Chicago's best neighborhoods, but there is still a huge diversity of people I deal with daily -- blacks, Latinos, Asians, Africans (like blacks directly from Africa), Russians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Polish, French, Middle Easterners, Indians, gays, goths, punks, preps, etc. Every day. There are still restaurants and places around that aren't chains, are local, and the city is in constant flux. The Chicago of 1993, when I first moved here, is not the same as the Chicago of 2012! Even the skyline has changed.

So, while I understand what the researchers are studying, I don't think it applies equally to all cities, honestly. They should probably do a study like that in the suburbs -- have a white person with a stalled SUV, see if they get helped, and how quickly, versus having a minority person with a stalled SUV, and see how long it takes for them to get help and/or arrested in the suburbs. Better still to have the person trying to break into their own vehicle, see what happens. Is it any wonder that the suburbs has spawned some of the most mean-spirited politics our country has ever seen (which embodies the GOP these days, a party that has curdled itself into a terrible place, to the point that Reagan himself would be drummed from its ranks as a communist)? It's hard to pretend to be "good people" when you're busy kicking everybody who's not Just Like You(tm) in the teeth. I'm drawing from my folks' 90s experience in Columbus, too, which epitomized homogenized upper- and upper middle class suburban living, when I think of how these suburbs tend to be.

Remember White Flight? That was the historical root of the explosion of suburbanism -- white folks feared integration with black folks, and fled the inner cities for safe, white, wealthy suburbs. Chicago has its "collar counties" -- DuPage, Will, Kane, McHenry -- all Republican bastions, all very white, very wealthy, and other things (see demographics below). Every city has its equivalent suburbs.

Anyway, no matter how suburbanites want to slice it, the founding ideal of their experience was rooted in fear of The Other, and we know exactly the color of The Other. How can any community rooted in racism be just, kind, and compassionate? Not possible, anymore than apartheid South Africa could be a bastion of justice and human decency...

Chicago: 42% white, 36% black
DuPage County: 77.9% white, 4% black
Will County: 81% white, 10% black (Will County must be going socialist)
Kane County: 79% white, 5% black
McHenry County: 93% white, .5% black

White people moved to the collar counties to get away from minorities, particularly poor ones. In fact, these people are willing to commute at length just so they don't have to run into anybody they don't want to run into.   So, again, it's easy to be gracious and helpful toward your fellow white man (or woman) if you're in the suburbs (and even then, does that happen so often? How often do you interact with your fellow suburbanites, really?) It's more challenging to be gracious and helpful toward someone who is very different from you. But I still see people do that in Chicago (although I would say that, even though Chicago is more cosmopolitan and diverse than any of its suburbs, Chicago still remains very segregated between North Side and South Side experiences). White or black or Latino or Asian, living in the North Side of Chicago is a very different city experience than living in the South Side.

Enough on that. I'll wager that if somebody's in trouble in Chicago, they're far likelier to get help here than they would in other big cities.

Game On

I'm amused when playing video games with my boys -- their competitive instincts come out, both with each other, and with me. While I don't play whole-hog versus my boys, I also definitely never just let them win to pad their egos. I play with them as a friendly competitor. I did that the other day, when I was showing B1 how to play basketball, was telling him "Now, this is what you'll be up against, what your opponents will try to do, so you have to be ready for it, and not be surprised or thrown off by it." I wasn't playing Detroit-style rules, mind you, but I was giving him the basics of mindful play, of offense and defense.

Same with the video games -- B1 in particular gets furious when he loses (B2 does, too, but only with his brother -- and, because he's 6, I play easier against him than against his 10-year-old big brother, so I guess there are less opportunities to earn his ire). But, oh, man, does B1 ever get mad when I beat him. He cries and rages, and gets more determined to play again to try to beat me. He hates if I get a high score that knocks his score down a notch.

I gently point out to him that this is the nature of competition, that, to win, you have to work hard for it, and even when you win, it's not like you'll always win; that records are made to be broken, that when you're on top, there's always (eventually) going to be someone better who comes along and knocks you off your perch, so it's important to have some humility along with your satisfaction of a well-earned win, and not to lose your head, one way or another.

Watching B1 rage, I'm reminded of endless chess games with my stepdad, who would beat me again and again and again and again (that's what I get for going up against an Ivy Leaguer!) But, eventually, I was able to beat him -- and I knew he wasn't cutting me any slack when we played, and it forced me to up my game.

So, on a smaller scale, I'm doing that with my boys -- teaching them the nature of competition, and how to win with humility and honor, and to respect themselves and their opponents, and to not lose their heads when somebody's beating them, and how to lose with grace.

It still amuses me -- B1 fumes and rages; B2 actually will get physical with his brother when he gets beaten. He will put down the controller and tackle his brother, and then I have to pry them apart, joking about penalty boxes and unsportsmanlike conduct.

I also tell them, when I'm playing, that while I know it's frustrating to lose, that when they're up against another player, they can't bank on that person ever throwing a game -- they certainly can't depend on that. That they have to play fairly, and play well, if they want to win. And sometimes, even that's not enough -- that they may be unlucky. But the way to minimize the role of luck is through skill and practice.

Of course, the video games are really just a petri dish for competition proper -- but baby steps.

Spin Cycle

Doing laundry this morning, after putting it off for a few days. I don't mind doing laundry; for me, the folding of the laundry is the most annoying part, going from the pure chaos of the laundry basket to orderly piles. Urk.

Can't believe the boys' school year is nearly over. B1 will be in 5th grade next year, and B2 will be in 1st grade. Amazing how quickly it all goes (cliché, I know). When B2 was still in preschool, that seemed to stretch out time more (since he'd been to young to be in Kindergarten the other year, falling just under the age cutoff, it meant an extra year of preschool for him). But now, he's hopping, skipping, and jumping his way to 1st grade. When your youngest is going from 6 to 7 this year, where does the time go?

The boys are completely stoked for the trip I'm taking them on after school is out. I'm busy planning the logistics of that; or I will be, this week. Just have to get it all sorted out. I've long ago gotten the time request from work, so that's covered. I just have to organize the rest of it. Road trip! The boys are psyched, want me to get a van.

Hoops

I took the boys out yesterday, took advantage of the ongoing unseasonably warm weather we've been having (strange, it's like being in a...hmmm...greenhouse). Taught B1 the rudiments of basketball; since he's so clearly going to be even taller than I am, I figure he should at least learn about it.

It's supposed to be this hot all week. I've been taking advantage of that to bike to work; as I may have said already, I never ride this early in the season, but with these temps in this whole Year Without a Winter, I might as well.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, Bitches

I'm taking the boys downtown for the St. Patrick's Day Parade, which is always a good time. They love all the throws that people toss and it's fun to see the river run green. B1 is fascinated by that, the plumber's dye they use to transform the river.

80??

I'm rather floored to find that we reached 80 degrees today. That's unheard for Chicago in March. Historically, we get a couple of weeks of warmth in April, before a temperature crash for most of May, but never in March. At any rate, I got my bike out and rode today, the first ride of the season. Again, I never ride this early, but when it's that warm, there's no excuse not to. And it looks like much of the week will be as warm, so I'll bike on those days, even as I wonder whether we'll get an inevitable temperature drop in the coming weeks. Or maybe it will just get warmer. This felt like the Year Without a Winter, at least here in Chicago. I'm amazed at what a non-event winter was for us this year. Again, entirely unfamiliar to me in all the years I've lived in Chicago. Makes me wonder what's in store for the summer, weatherwise. All the same, it was nice to have my bike out of storage.

Emilia Clarke

I do have to say that Emilia Clarke, who plays Daenerys Targaryen in "Game of Thrones," is quite the juicy little morsel. Apparently she got the part after the original choice (Tamzin Merchant) dropped the role (I wouldn't be surprised if Merchant balked at all the nudity required of the role of Daenerys). But, seeing both actresses, I think Clarke is a much better choice for Daeny. She's a far better fit than the first choice. She absolutely looks the part, exactly as I envisioned it.

One frustration for me -- they just list her birth year (1987 -- what a baby!) but they don't list her birth month! So, I'm left to guess her sign. I'm guessing Pisces, because she has the doe eyes going, and has a rather nice ass (two qualities I've noticed with Piscean women). But I don't know for sure. Anyway, she's well-cast, and she's rather tasty, and she's playing one of my favorite characters in the books, so that's nice, too.

I hope HBO funds the series all the way through. I want to see it from start to finish (again, assuming George R. R. Martin finishes it!)

Thrones

I finished watching it, and they were, indeed, very faithful to the source novel, from start to finish. If they follow the one-book-per-season formula for the series (and if HBO is smart and keeps renewing it, hello?) it should give Martin enough time to finish the series! He sure as hell better.

I personally felt he'd gotten into a speedbump in Book 4, which was why it took him so long to get to Book 5, but (haven't read Book 5, yet, but it's on its way) maybe he'll have written his way out of the hole he'd dug for himself.

All the same, having enjoyed the first season, I'm still tempted to craft a "Game of Thrones" drinking game out of some of the things portrayed in it. Stuff like...

Bare ass (male or female): Take a drink
Bare breasts: Take a drink
Medieval sex scene: Take a drink
Joffrey acts like a shithead: Take a drink
Someone carries a torch: Take a drink
Homo-erotic scene: Take a drink
Actor playing Varys calls to mind Donald Pleasance in his acting: Take a drink
Someone's throat gets slit and they die gurgling: Take two drinks
Someone gets a blowjob: Take a drink
Character looks gravely on at something or someone: Take a drink
Cersei scowls with wrinkle-browed disapproval: Take two drinks
Battle scene is implied but never shown: Take two drinks
Catelyn acts like a bitch: Take a drink
Sansa does something stupid: Take a drink
The Imp does something witty or charming: Take a drink
Lord Baelish ("Littlefinger") smirks and/or grins: Take two drinks
Someone reminds Jon Snow that he's a bastard: Take a drink

And so on.

A Game of Thrones

I picked up the first season of "Game of Thrones" on DVD. One of my favorite fantasy novels of the 90s, I'm glad to see it finally realized in a show, and I have to say that the casting is perfect, and they've done credit to it.

For those unaccustomed to the series of books, however, I imagine the body count is startling and/or shocking. Which cracks me up -- welcome to the world of George R. R. Martin, who is crueler and harder to his characters than anybody. I'll keep a running tally (without saying who falls, for those who aren't familiar with the work):

GT SEASON 1 BODY COUNT: 4

These aren't just minor characters, either, but are major ones in the story.

Anyhow, it's just getting started. I'm pleased to see the show so faithfully and successfully execute (pun intended) the novels. I haven't read Martin's Book Five, yet, since it took him so long to get that one done, but I'll get around to it.

Great series, though. Can't wait to see how far they run with it, once things really get out of hand. And I dearly hope Martin actually lives long enough to finish what he started. Finish the series, man!

Trumped

For all of his associated hoopla, I have to hand it to Trump with the Trump Tower -- it's perfectly situated downtown, has managed to seamlessly integrate with the skyline, and has amazing residences therein (to say nothing of their five-star restaurant, Sixteen). The floor plans for the various condos look sharp. If you're even remotely cosmopolitan and urbane, the appeal of the place is undeniable. I didn't expect to like it as much as I do, just because it was a Trump property, but having seen it up close, I'm admittedly impressed. Even the landscaping around the base of it is impeccably chosen, fully integrates with the surrounding area in ways that neither the Hancock Building nor the Sears/Willis Tower do -- likely reflective of architectural advances in aesthetics. For a building as tall and large as the Trump Tower to do all that it does as well as it does is worthy of recognition -- it's another architectural jewel in the crown for Chicago, which is already an abundance of architectural treasures. I can't help but think that even the most aesthetically benighted of rural-suburban bumpkins from the collar counties would be able to look at that tower and think "Wow." Whomever Trump entrusted to oversee that project did a very good job.

Oh, Hi! Oh.

Meanwhile, Ohio continues to accelerate its race down the toilet. Talk about a death spiral. Exene and I left Ohio in 1993 -- 19 years ago. It was a different state, then; it still was some semblance of itself remaining when we left the sinking ship, before the GOP had its way with the place.

Seriously, though -- the state GOP has dominated Ohio for most of those 19 years, so, following their ideological claims, the state should be thriving, since it's followed Republican policies for so long.

And yet, hmmm, it's in freefall. Funny, that. In fact, their condition parallels most Republican-dominated states: economic freefall, widespread destitution. It's almost like their cockeyed economic tropes don't actually deliver what they claim they to. Huh. It'll take Ohioans another 30 years to make that realization.

G-Ain't

So, looks like no G8 for Chicago, after all. No doubt Obama, Inc. are sweating having riots in the home city in an election year; they're opting for Camp David for a more secure place to conduct business. The NATO summit will still be here, so there'll still be enough craziness to go around, for sure.

Speaking of that, it's Stupor Tuesday. No doubt the GOP will continue cutting its own throat. There's not enough voter fraud and voter suppression in the country to enable them to win this year. They'd have to create massive ballot bonfires to be able to prevail with whatever candidate they belch up at this point.

Romney's the only actual threat to Obama in the general election, but only because Obama's the most Republican of Democrats to ever be President; he makes Bill Clinton look like a radical by comparison. But the Republican voters want some serious fascist Kool-Aid this year, and won't stomach Romney, it would appear. Gonna cut their noses off to spite their faces. It's going to be a GOP flameout of epic proportions. Maybe they're banking on a putsch or something, but, in terms of elections? No way. Obama's going to mop the floor with whichever sorry soul the GOP trots out. Except, of course, for this last dirty trick up their sleeves. But doing that would create a situation where there would be a president-elect robbed of even the semblance of legitimacy; it would make the Bush/Cheney electoral theft of 2000 seem almost quaint by comparison.

That's not to say Obama's particularly good; he's been a big disappointment precisely because he's governed so far to the right. In the overcooked atmosphere of today's politics, if he were actually governing as a moderate, the GOP would declare him a socialist -- oh, wait, they already have. Actual Republicans from the 90s back to the 50s would look at Obama and recognize him as one of their own. Only cross-eyed Republicans from 2000 onward fail to see that. The beast is eating its own tail, and it's not pretty (although, as somebody from the left, I welcome that partisan ugliness endemic to the GOP; let'em eat their own tails). It's just unfortunate how much it's cost this country for the last 30+ years.

Anyway, onward into the abyss.

Whew

Had stomach flu over the weekend, most likely norovirus, judging from the symptoms. I had hoped to make it through gastroenteritis season this year unscathed, but no such luck. Got wrung out like a dishcloth Saturday, although, thankfully, after about 10 hours of hell, it promptly ceased. It was like a gastrointestinal Mongol horde riding over me, then, having decimated all that they surveyed, rode on. B2 has already had this one. B1, so far, has not caught it. Nor has Exene. Anyway, nasty bug, but I'm actually glad it hit over the weekend, as it let me just hunker down and deal with it, versus being at work or something.

City of Big Shoulders

Happy 175th Birthday, Chicago! You know you rock!

Irony Man

The boys were thrilled to have me pick them up tonight. As we were walking back, watching the rain turn into winter mix, we were humming the melody to "Iron Man" -- waiting at an intersection, this babe was with her date, standing next to us. When she realized what the boys and I were singing, she joined in -- I didn't realize it until I heard her, and she looked on and smiled in approval, bobbing her head -- her look cracked me up, because she was processing that, like this image of a dad and his boys singing "Iron Man." That amused me, and her boyfriend/date was like "What song is that?" (HUH?!) and she said "Iron Man! You know?" and she sang a few more lines of the melody. Sorry, dude -- you're in dire trouble manwise if your girlfriend knows Black Sabbath and you don't -- that's too much woman for you! He probably likes Dave Matthews Band. I thought about mentioning that B1's FIRST SONG he'd ever sung was "Iron Man" -- like when he was two or something! But I held back, for the sake of the guy, who clearly had no idea what the song was.

Then, a few blocks later, the boys and I were heading home, and this cab pulled up and this older woman walking with two canes worked her way across our path. I stopped the boys so she could make her way (I framed it like "Hey, [B2], let's wait for your brother to catch up." Once she'd passed us, I said "Alright, Gentlemen, let's go." (I tend to call the boys "Gentlemen") -- the older woman said "And you ARE a gentleman!" That caught me off-guard. I just blushed and thanked the lady. For me, it's just self-evident to be courteous, but anymore, not being an asshole practically qualifies as courtesy, so actually being courteous must seem otherworldly?

Off the Deep End

Seems like a Leap Year is the perfect time to consider the ongoing drive toward war with Iran. The latest bout of saber-rattling on our part, relative to Iran, is reflective of a long-simmering neoconservative wet dream about going to war with Iran. It's something they've wanted to do since the Bush/Cheney co-presidency -- hell, I saw the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as Rounds One and Two for the war with Iran, as a rather pernicious Round Three.

Anyway, when the Republicans lost the White House, the drumbeat for war with Iran was somewhat muted, although the war drums did pick up volume at two discrete intervals in the Obama years, among DC policy elites. And now that's kicking up again, with more force than I've seen before, so I'm more than a little worried that our country is seriously contemplating a war with Iran.

This would be a disaster for our country, and an apocalypse for Iran. I really, really hope we don't do this. I remember reading up about Iran and seeing that its rank-and-file populace had several key qualities:

1. They liked American culture -- yes, they disliked our government's hostility to their own country, but the people of Iran had a surprisingly positive view of America. Sadly, their rank-and-file were far more positive about Americans than the rank-and-file American is about Iranians.
2. They were more than a little disenchanted with the reactionary theocracy that has ruled Iran since the 70s. The Iranian Revolution has failed to help everyday Iranians live better, and they know this. Much of that revolution's energy came from Iranian resistance to the dictatorship of the Shah (who was our man in Iran for generations)

Now, left to its own devices, I believe that Iran's theocracy will eventually be toppled by a "Persian Spring" much in the way that the Arab Springs have been scuttling dictatorships throughout the Middle East (again, dictatorships America has supported for decades).

The ONE THING that could give a shot in the arm to the theocrats in Iran would be -- you got it -- American invasion of Iran. It would be exactly what those dunderheads would need to unit their guardedly pro-American populace against an invading foreign nation.

It's very frustrating, because if our country pursued peaceful diplomacy with Iran, engagement instead of aggression, it would put the theocrats at odds with their own populace, and would erode what little legitimacy those creeps have on the reins of power.

But our foreign policy is so tone-deaf to this kind of stuff, that I'm worried that we're going to rush headlong into war with Iran and have a fight on our hands that is far worse than the Pyrrhic victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it's just so damned needless, even by our own standards of pointless warmongering.

A war in Iran, should it actually occur, will be a disaster, and will set back healing the wounds between the US and Iran for a generation or more.

Obama has, unfortunately, governed much like the "third term" of the Bush/Cheney co-presidency, continuing so much of their policies that it's caused this country incredible harm. It would be a terrible shame if he continued along that path and went to war with Iran.

So, I'm hoping we're not stupid in this, but hoping against American stupidity is like hoping that the sun isn't going to rise. And, yes, cynics will point out that Iran has tons of oil (and, gee, that wouldn't possibly motivate us to go to war, now would it?) but the vastly larger population in Iran, the terrain, and everything about it would make Iraq seem like a walk in the park by comparison.

And it would absolutely give those tottering theocrats -- who are in serious danger of being consumed and overturned by their own people in a few years -- a stranglehold on power as they sought to unite their country against "The Great Satan."

The above opinion is, of course, completely outside of the mainstream. The "Beltway Consensus" about Iran is something like this: "We should invade them NOW." (hawk position) or "We should invade them LATER." (dove position) -- and it's sad but true, reflecting just how little range of opinion is allowed in this issue of vital national importance.

Our country does not need another pointless foreign war. We really, really need investment at home, not squandering money abroad.