it comes in pints?

Watch This Space

Val is liveblogging, hopefully, the demise of the tyrant who has enslaved Cuba for nearly 50 years. The rumors are non-stop, of course, but one dares to dream that this is, in fact, real. It cannot ever be soon enough.

Today's Happy Place

Okay, I have no idea who came up with this. I've seen it on a couple of message boards and it's been sent to my inbox about three or four times. On the off chance that the person responsible stumbles in here, I LOVE you. This pretty much sums up why I've scraped any Syd tributes for the time being.

There are, at this moment, approximately 1,256,874,674,989 Youtube Syd Barrett tributes featuring collages of the same recycled pictures to the soundtrack of "Dark Globe." What's even more annoying is that you have to wade through all of these to get to the genuinely interesting stuff, like old video clips of television appearances or specials only aired in the UK that I never got a chance to see. I know we're all compelled to remember people who pass when they've touched our lives, no matter how distantly. But I mean, really. ENOUGH. And that's coming from a person who never, ever thought she'd say that when it came to this subject.

What she said

Please.

Sign up, folks. Emily and I are signed up (look to your right). I hope you will too.

Dancin'

I don't have time for the proper and lengthy scatological analysis this unbelievably hideous shitfest deserves, but Sheila, that link is for you, baby.

Yes, I actually do own the soundtrack.

Quote of the week

I don't know why the left calls conservatives "chickenhawks" and claims we're afraid of Muslims because we don't all join the military. When you're in a war with Muslims, the military is the safest place to be, because the military is the thing Muslims are least likely to attack.

Andrea explains the lefty take on the incident.

Another Happy Place

Quick one, as I put off tidying up the apartment before leaving for vacation next week. Below the fold.

That's Syd's car he's laying on, though he apparently never drove it. It was eventually towed by the local council.

Love the shoes.

"Heat Exhaustion" My Ass

I have to admit, I'm kind of enjoying watching this train wreck.

Emily, how are your poker skills?

No reason except a prize of $18,600 and a Golden Fig Leaf.

God Speed, Jeff

Crush the bitch and come back soon (background in the comments here, but it ain't pretty).

Hooter contest

Which set is best, this set or this set?

Vote here until about 9:00a.m. Pacific ("God's") time.

UPDATE: Well, they have ended the voting early and the final tally shows that 82% preferred Right Wing Death Babe Mel, 18% preferred Stone Cold Hillary. 18% of the people are obviously weird, but the biggest upside is that today's program got a lot of airplay of this song.

Happy Places

Because it's fun. Sheila's happy places. Val's happy place.

My current happy place below the fold. Feel free to add your own.

Worst person in the World

Lucianne Goldberg, for posting this picture. She would be only number two if the sculptor actually qualified as a "person", but I suspect he/she/it is more likely some form of Satanspawn.

Heartless Jezebel

The Evil Temptress with the really bitchin' banner hooked me on this foul, addictive time-waster.

I'm still trying to get 17. Hard-hearted wench. Now I'm like Marion Barry on crack. "The bitch set me up!"

P.S. to Cassandra - Thanks, dear!

Sick of 'Em

Would somebody close to them please introduce Joe, Jessica and Ashlee Simpson to the concept of celebrity fatigue? I know the stalkarazzi can be pretty imposing, but there's no way people are that fucking ubiquitous in the media without some deliberate PR efforts. I don't even read gossip sites or magazines or watch shows like "Entertainment Tonight" and I can't seem to get away from hearing about one of those airheads at least four times a day.

Schadenfreude

I can't find it anywhere online, but last week, the print edition of USA Today carried an interview with director M. Night Shyamalan where he responded to critical thrashing of his films by saying he was worried his tastes have become "rarified."

No, M. Your appeal has just become more selective. By the way, if you're a man defending himself against charges of egomania, it's probably not a good idea to pose for the corresponding photograph wearing a t-shirt pimping one of your own older movies.

For this reason, among others, it's nice to experience a genuine guilt-free schadenfreude after reading some of the responses from critics over his latest film, The Chick In The Pool, or something like that. Somebody close to this guy needs to sit him down and have a serious chat. I'm sure there are tender, subtle ways to tell somebody they suck at something without coming off like that mean dude on "American Idol." I guess getting fired from Disney wasn't enough of bonk on the head to knock him out of the daze he's in that actually makes him believe he can write a good movie. The Village was so bad the mere mention of it literally makes me angry. And by "literally," I don't mean "not really 'literally,' I'm only exaggerating." I mean literally literally, like I don't think it's in any way unreasonable to question the intelligence of anyone who thought it was a good movie. I know tastes in this kind of stuff are subjective and I don't think people who liked it are necessarily wrong. I just think they're stupid.

Anyway, hopefully now that the guy has made a string of bad movies, all the Hollywood darling "the next Spielberg!" bullshit will finally come to the screeching halt it's deserved since every crapfest he's offered following The Sixth Sense. Maybe if he'd poke his ego with a big enough pin to deflate it only slightly in order to recognize his strengths as a director but extremely severe limitations as a writer, he might be able to recover. If not, hasta la vista, Shymadongalong. Thanks for at least one good movie.

"Hail Fredonia", indeed

I had no idea there is actually a Fredonia University (more accurately, a SUNY Fredonia).

There are so many jokes here I don't know where to start. But I wonder what would happen if I called Dennis Hefner an "upstart".

When life hands you tar...

...pave the damn road.

Walnut Creek, Calif. (KCBS) -- All traffic lanes have been re-opened on southbound Interstate Highway 680 north of Treat Boulevard in Walnut Creek after they were closed following a collision that sent 100 gallons of tar on to the roadway.

California Highway Patrol Officer Scott Yox said several ramps and lanes had to be closed for several hours.

The bride and I were actually heading up 680 in the other direction, heard this on the traffic reports, and saw the backup. Traffic southbound was backed up several miles on 680 and several connecting highways and roads because five of seven lanes were closed by the spill. But not to worry:

In KCBS Sky 5 Cathy Coates observed that instead of trying to clean up the spill, the crews decided to spread it onto the roadway and let it dry in place. "They are just doing a freeway patching job here," she said.

And we drove over it on the way home this evening. Not that a lot of the road was repaved, since 100 gallons doesn't go that far, but what the hell. Waste not, want not, as it were.

And by the way, we also heard on the traffic reports on the way home that there was a fatality accident that closed one of the roads on my normal evening commute. It was a good day to take off.

Random Question

Why do radio stations run adverts for sold out concerts?

See Emily Play

Early Pink Floyd fashion:

Um, guys? What's going on here? Because from where I'm sitting you could, at best, blame 75% of this on drugs. How do you account for the other 25%?

Pictures = 1000 Words

Pugs in Pearls.

and

The Difference.

Because he asked nicely

KG wants a link to his Musical Geography Question - Parrothead edition. I'm a bit of a fan but I don't know any of them.

I don't know Brian's return Musical Geography Question either, which means it's probably a Pink Floyd song. Welcome back, Brian!

Another Beautiful Day in the "Sunshine State"

Damn, it's fucking pouring outside. I guess that gives me more than enough excuse (as if much were needed) to not go to work for a few hours today like, for whatever insane reason, I told myself I was going to.

UPDATE: Ah yes, lost power as expected. At least it was only a few minutes.

VERY RANDOM UPDATE: I suddenly really have a need for Thai food. Green Curry Duck especially.

Good

Sometimes justice prevails (registration required, but here is a somewhat less detailed AP story).

Jury award stings union
UNITE Here hit with $17.2 million decision in Sutter defamation suit.

A Placer Superior Court jury has awarded the Sutter Health hospital chain $17.2 million in compensatory damages in a defamation suit against a labor union that accused the hospital of using soiled linens in its maternity wards.

The jury's decision, if upheld, is one of the highest ever awarded against a labor union in the United States, and could cripple the finances of UNITE Here, a national union of about 450,000 workers in hotels, industrial laundries and apparel manufacturing.

I'd hoped for "crush" but I'll settle for "cripple".

The suit stemmed from a labor dispute involving the union and a laundry service used by some Sutter Health facilities.

When I first saw the headline, I assumed it was a union with a beef against Sutter, but no. They have a dispute with one of Sutter's suppliers.

In early 2005, UNITE Here, which represented the workers at laundry contractor Angelica Corp., sent about 11,000 postcards to households in Northern California, warning recipients they "may be bringing home more than your baby if you deliver at a Sutter birthing center."

Angelica Corp. contracted with Sutter to clean sheets and towels for a number of its hospitals.

The postcards also said that Missouri-based Angelica Corp., which operated plants in Antioch, Fresno and Stockton, didn't ensure that its linens are free of blood, feces and possible pathogens.

"What these unions were hoping to do was to get Sutter patients to not go to Sutter hospitals, thereby forcing Sutter to put pressure on Angelica," said Robert Welsh, the lead attorney representing Sutter Health in the lawsuit, and a partner at the San Francisco-based O'Melveny & Myers. He cited internal UNITE Here documents as evidence of that strategy.

Cooper, the spokeswoman at UNITE Here, said the union still believed that the allegations were true...

Um, apparently not.

...and pointed out that Sutter Health had changed some linen-related policies since the postcard mailing.

"Sutter Hospitals has increased their inspections of the Angelica plants and required that Angelica engage in regular sanitizing of trucks and carts used to deliver linen, among other changes," she said.

Wow. In response to bad, if false, publicity Sutter tries to make itself look better. Fiends.

But some labor experts said the lawsuit signaled a trend they found troubling -- the use of civil laws to settle disputes with labor unions.

No, it represents fighting back against libelous accusations against parties not even involved in the dispute.

"What this represents is the further criminalization of labor union organizing," said Nelson Lichtenstein, a history professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy associated with the university. "If this is upheld, it's another step in the destruction of labor law."

Uh, Mr. history professor, it's not "criminalization", and it changed nothing about labor laws. It just says that a union involved in a dispute can't make false accusations. But then, I've noticed that as a general rule, organizations whose titles contain the word "democracy" appended as an apparently unrelated afterthought tend not to employ the best and the brightest.

Lichtenstein pointed out that during most union protests, workers carry signs and make charges that could be considered defamatory.

" 'Wal-Mart is evil' or 'The company is unfair' -- those are all statements that you would make at a picket line. Does that mean you can get sued for defamation?" he asked.

No, because they are not defamatory (Dave could explain specifically why, but it's more or less because they are not direct accusations). However, attempting to financially hurt those not even involved in the dispute by lying would seem actionable to anyone but a lefty academic.

"This kind of ruling results in a censoring of the picket line."

A clueless lefty academic. But I repeat myself.

UNITE Here has used similar tactics before in other parts of the country, using testing to prove its unsafe laundry claims, said Richard Hurd, professor of labor relations at Cornell University.

"It's called secondary pressure," he said. "It puts pressure on the ultimate consumer, who is the only one with the real economic power."

For a variety of reasons, I hate secondary boycotts and other secondary pressure. One might argue that they are legitimate if the allegations are true, but it seems they are not.

In response, it is not uncommon for companies to use civil or criminal laws to try to thwart unions, said Hurd.

Or to defend themselves against false accusations.

"Sometimes they might use racketeering laws to stop unions, and the companies have gotten a lot of mileage out of that," he said.

"It leaves unions in a really weak state, and it certainly fits the mold of companies playing hardball with unions."

And it' completely irrelevant to this particular case.

Lichtenstein said the practice dates back to a 1906 case when workers at a hat manufacturing company in Danbury, Conn., were fined for urging customers to boycott the company's hats.

"Here, (Sutter) has gone to a civil court to criminalize ordinary, perfectly normal propaganda techniques," he said.

"And that's troubling."

No, what's troubling is that someone who can't tell the difference between propaganda and libel, nor between primary and secondary parties to a dispute, was hired as a professor.

Tangentially related observation: The last time I tuned into an NPR station some years ago (quite by accident, I assure you), the "news" headline reported was that Nike was going to court "for the right to lie to the public". In actual fact, they were suing to get the same free speech rights their opponents enjoyed (accusers over sweatshops enjoyed complete free speech rights while Nike's speech, even when rebutting the charges, was deemed to be "commercial" speech and subject to regulation). But subtleties like that are lost on leftist nutjobs, especially those in academia.

Teh Evidence Roolz Rox0rz!

This may be something only a lawyer, and probably not every lawyer, could love, but personally I found it hilarious (and mildly useful in, um, refreshing my recollection).

Thanks, good luck and my sympathies to imminent California Bar taker Russell.

Yes, I thought of doing this

Glad I didn't. I wouldn't have done it as well.

Oklahoma City Memorial

Wow. Just wow.

The Daily Condemnation

I hope that my co-bloggers will join me, along with others, in fully condemning right wing hate monger Tim Blair for suggesting Robert Fisk should thrown out of an airplane.

However, this does bear the question. If Fisk were thrown out of an airplane by pshyco Islamofascist hijackers, would he think he deserved it?

Hypocrisy II

You know, until this Glenn Greenwald flap hit the pixelwaves, I assumed that the popular bumper sticker I'm sure you've all seen:

Friends don't let friends vote Republican

was not meant to be taken as a serious call to deprive Republicans of their voting rights.

But now, given the complete lack of humor on the part of moonbats, I'm not so sure...

The "S" Word

Dear Everybody Who Is Making A Really Big Deal About The Whole Open Mic Business When George Bush Said The Ummmmm-I'm-Telling-Mom "S" Word,

You're weird.

That is all.

Regards,

Strange, early morning conversations

Why I love the Morning Show. Just a few minutes ago, the intro to the finance news guy went something like this:

"And now, a man who once spent time as a stunt double for Wile E. Coyote..."

"Hey, that was a tough job!"

"Well, you got all that free stuff from Acme."

"Yeah, but it never worked."

Irony Hyprocrisy

It's what's for dinner.

Via Cassandra.

You now have 10 hours (and counting) to denounce this post, only three and a half hours to condemn Cassandra's post. It's too late to condemn Patterico's post. I condemn you for not condemning it in a timely fashion.

Boob blogging

Bitter's doing it. Links to several videos involving breasts, and a post about Cynthia McKinney.

Confucius Say

You know, if you happen to be the owner of a lemon tree so large that it dangles over the side of your fence, causing the excess ripened fruit to daily go *splat* on the public sidewalk, it would be a really nice courtesy to your neighbors and other people who have to make use of this pathway on a regular basis if you considered cleaning that rotten shit up. Speaking in complete generalities, of course.

The Independent Bimbo

Paris Hilton: “I haven't accepted money from my parents since I was 18. Since then, I've worked on my own. It feels good that I don't ever have to depend on a man or my family for anything.”

Now, if only more spawn of the rich and famous had the character to eschew the generosity of their parents in favor of making sex tapes with D-list celebrities to earn a fortune they can genuinely call their own, we'd be talking the true greatest generation.

(Link stolen from Rob.)

@#$%! @$#!! ^#%@$!!!!!

To the person who designed the cardboard CD packaging with the slip in/out pouch that makes it impossible to remove the disc without handling the parts you're not supposed to get your sticky fingers on: fuck you.

Amityville

As late to the party as ever, I finally watched the re-make of The Amityville Horror this weekend. I'm no horror afficiando or anything, but I thougt it was better and scarier than the 1979 version. One thing that really surprised me, though, was that people are still getting away with describing this as a "true story." The tagline even reads something like "what happened those 28 days has never been explained." Oh, you bet your sweet boopy it has. Over and over and over and over again. It was a hoax. A lie. Completely made up. Don't get me wrong - it's a great spooky story, but so was Poltergeist. That doesn't make it true.

The extras on the DVD even contain interviews with the actors talking about the "true story," though in fairness, this might have been at the encouragement of the producers as a hook. It also has a feature on the DeFeo murders that had interviews with famed "demonologist" Lorraine Warren, who now sits at the top of my list of Most Annoying Human Alive (I don't have the courage to visit or link her official site) for her bogus posturing and manipulation of this story for personal gain. At one point she says something along the lines that the best weapon the devil has against mankind are skeptics that don't readily believe everything that goes bump in the night is the work of ghosts. Okay, so every person who doesn't buy the extremely doubtful accounts the Lutz's gave (they're both dead now) about their month in the Amityville house, which would include myself, is a minion of Satan. I guess I can live with that.

This just in

Oprah is not a lesbian.

Some will be relieved, some will be disappointed, but I'm sure that none will be unmoved by this revelation.

It's like waving red meat in front of me

Alan knew I wouldn't let this go by. Scienatology has no approved symbol for government-issued grave markers.

I hereby submit this candidate:

Pete Who?!?

Thanks to Andrew for sending me this piece of completely laughable crap comparing Pete "Nobody In America Would Have Even Heard Of Him If His Famous Supermodel Girlfriend Didn't Get Caught Up In A Cocaine Snorting Scandal" Doherty as a modern-day Syd Barrett.

Is it possible to feel nostalgia for an age or an experience you never actually went through (Oh, that's not a completely over-run cliche now, is it? - E)? If it is, I imagine the Germans will have a word for it. That word would describe the peculiar sadness I felt on learning that Syd Barrett had died. Mine was a generation that experienced the Sixties at second hand, yet for whom they were nevertheless deeply formative.

Sigh. Yawn. Yet another wistful, overly-romaticized schmaltz down a memory lane never visited that actually becomes disturbingly ironic, considering the subject at hand was all but utterly ruined because of the era's excesses.

The face that looked out from the obituary - Syd as a young man - had the same fragile, intelligent, wary beauty that you could see in Pete Doherty only a week before, interviewed on the Jonathan Ross show. The two, suddenly, seem to have a lot in common. Both mythologise a lost, unattainable and very English past. For Doherty, it is an imagined Albion. For Syd, it was something more bound up with childhood: the past of the nursery rhyme and the laughing madcap. Both have a charisma bound up with intense vulnerability. And both, of course, had their problems with drugs. For Syd, it was psychedelics. It seems to be a barometer of how far we've come that Doherty is nothing so quaint as an "acid casualty".

I'll admit here that I have not heard one note of Doherty's music and wouldn't know it if I did. The only reason I recognize his name at all is because of that business with Kate Moss last year and the scandals that followed for the both of them. Moss seemed to land on her feet. Doherty only landed in drug rehab. I think that's what bothers me the most about the comparison - it's so hollow it doesn't consider anything beyond a very public struggle with drugs and even that's questionable. Syd Barrett never told the press to "fuck off." He never blamed his problems on the media (pssst - Pete. When you get busted using drugs and the papers run stories about it, they are not ruining your life. You are ruining your own). Syd was shy and uncomfortable with his fame. He didn't throw vodka bottles at his audience or assault his bandmates while performing. He hasn't got a rap sheet longer than a Fidel Castro speech. He's never been banned from an airline. If you must resort to shallow comparisons, I'd say Doherty was more Sid Vicious than Syd Barrett.

Finally, the author, Sam Leith, concludes:

Syd went from Cambridge to outer space, and didn't make it back.

Um, yes he did and this is something that's been really bugging me about all I've read on Barrett following his death. Just because he didn't resume a public pop music career doesn't mean he never managed to land on his feet. I don't know how to write about this without coming off like a snobbish know-it-all, because I wasn't personally aquainted with the man, but according to reports from people who were, he was surviving quite nicely thanks to favorably generous royalties from Pink Floyd while enjoying quiet hobbies from his home in Cambridge. I have one more massive post to write about Barrett before I get over this, but shit on a stick, people. If you look at some of the last pictures taken of the man (many against his wishes), he was shaved, groomed, properly dressed and perfectly aware of where he was heading. Hardly the portrait of a man who needed mommy to feed him with a spoon. A lot of people have been writing that he was in the "care" of his mother, which is bullshit. He initially moved back in to her home because he was bankrupt. It's quite normal for adults to move in with their parents when they're going through difficult times. And while there's no doubting he was emotionally and mentally troubled, I think he'd settled into a relatively normal life, freaks knocking on his door aside. If he hadn't, given that his mother died in 1991, I think he would have been floating down one mighty rapid shit creek if he was totally dependent on her care. There were no reports of troubles with police, public disturbances or any other unusual behavior that would warrant a comparison to Pete Doherty other than the fact that they were both drug users (and not even the same drugs at that) in a pop band at one point in their lives. As for Doherty's music, we'll have to wait a good twenty years to see if anyone's still listening to him to find out if he's worth any further equivalence. For the time being, he's most definitely not.

Quod erat demonstratum

On the other hand, so far as I know, Mussolini never put puppies in a blender or murdered a hobo.

Musical Geography Question [Hint added]

Carrying on for Brian and giving Deb a breather...

If fast talkin' guys with strange red eyes have put things in your head, where are you?

Hint: You used to walk through the park there, making love all the way

ANSWER: And I'm disappointed no one got it.

Mendocino

The Fiercest Killers in the Animal Kingdom

Kevin Smith on why he didn't do Superman Returns: as CTG notes, it's long, but hilarious and worth it.

Oh, Screw His "Talent"

You know, I really hate it when somebody acting like an extreme asshole and treating the people he works with like crap has his shit behavior tolerated or even dismissed because he's "creative" or "talented" or a "perfectionist" or any other "scare quote" description you can think of that's applied to artists that, had they been employed in any other professional field, would either be out of a job or regularly told off and eventually shunned by their co-workers instead of being heaped with praise.

Apparently, this is required now

So I want you to know that I unequivocally condemn myself in advance for this post.

If you happen to see some ALF or ELF type moron carrying a molotov cocktail, just shoot the bastard. The gene pool will thank you. Or, if killing is too violent for you, just fire a warning shot to the knee.

Oh wait, that's two over-the-top comments. I unequivocally condemn myself for the second one too.

I Pity The Fool

Mr. T.: real man of action.

"As a spiritual man, I felt it would be a sin against my God for me to wear all that gold again because I spent a lot of time with the less fortunate," the actor said Thursday at the Television Critics Association's summer meeting.

"I saw some, I call it 'sorry celebrities.' They'll go down there and hook up with the people to take a photo-op. I said, 'How disgusting.' If you're not going to go down there with a check and a hammer and a nail to help the people, don't go down there."

He's also got a new show in the works that will air on TVLand in October. I might actually have to break down and get cable for that.

My Contribution to the Plame Debate

Will begin and end with this link.

"A World Without Israel"

Team America: It was funny because it's true.

This Just In - Princess Diana "Still Dead"

There's something kind of amusing about a millionaire who initially made his fortune working for an international arms dealer complaining about the "heartless pursuit of money." At least he isn't blaming the MI-5, the CIA, or the Windsor family for their publication and that's an improvement over his behavior in the past, so I guess I'm glad for that much.

That's not to defend the Princess Diana Industry™ that's managed to take the tacky exploit of memories of the glamorous dead to defiant levels of low-brow sleaze, especially given the circumstances under which those photos were taken in the last moments of her life. I was no fan of the woman in life but I still think it's despicable to fleece her image in death.

HAHAHAHA!

Just found this via Cassandra.

Funny guy

Red Buttons has died.

5 Million Journey Fans

I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out the point this guy is trying to make, other than movie reviewers are only giving their personal opinions and people shouldn't take it personally, the philistines that the general movie-going public are known to be, by having the nerve to express an opinion about a critics opinion and if they do, they should just start a blog instead of taking advantage of user features available at online publications that allows them to give immediate feedback to a critic because, well, everybody knows that just because something is popular doesn't mean it's necessarily good, as the Great Unwashed are too stupid to know the Velvet Underground's first album was good, except for the 3,000 people who initially bought it and they must just be geniuses because they all started a band. Presumably a very big one. But that's just his opinion.

Except that telling someone you think they're full of shit isn't "taking it personally." We're not talking about hurt feelings, just a bunch of online readers telling the author of a film review to get stuffed for predictably panning a movie (the latest Pirates of the Caribbean) clearly designed to please audiences and not critics.

Here's the best part:

For some reason, the idea persists that popular equals good. Popular equals popular. Few would argue that McDonald's makes the best hamburgers, or that the 1963-64 season of "The Beverly Hillbillies" is the greatest TV season of all time. They're satisfactory; they're entertaining; maybe they're good, maybe they're not.

"Good" usually lasts. The story goes that just 3,000 people bought 1967's "The Velvet Underground and Nico" when it came out, but every one of them started a band.

Good usually lasts. Right. Because retailers can't keep enough copies of that Velvet Underground album on their shelves, while the McDonald's franchise and "Beverly Hillbillies" TV series have both slipped into obscurity. Shit examples all around.

On the other hand, does anyone still listen to Mr. Mister's "Welcome to the Real World," one of the best-selling albums of 1986?

Probably not, but the two hit singles released from it are still in rotation on mainstream radio stations. When's the last time you heard "All Tomorrow's Parties" on the air?

What was that he was saying about "good" lasting?

15 minutes turns into megabucks

Seinfeld been berry berry good to Soup Nazi:

Original 'Soup Nazi' Crossing The Pond

LONDON -- New York chef Al Yeganeh, who inspired "Seinfeld'"s brusque "Soup Nazi" character, is taking his recipes across the pond.

Yeganeh and his partners plan to open 50 Original SoupMan franchises in Britain during the next year, Original SoupMan CEO John Bello said Wednesday. The company also hopes to open outlets in Germany, Italy and Japan.

From one episode. Amazing. Congrats on a great success, Al.

New addition to the Shop o' links

Generally, I have added people to my Shop 'o Links based on several readings of much material. In this case, I'm adding one based on exactly one post. This one.

Emily, I am forever in your debt for finding that. It is sheer brilliance. Some of my answers would be a bit different because of different life circumstances (I may post on those later) but for most of them I can only offer this quote:

WE'RE NOT WORTHY!

Lies

And the filthy rotten lying motherf***ers who tell them.

This post by B.C. set me off once again. Actually, it wasn't the post itself, but a link provided by a commenter that really set me off. What a foul, steaming pile of crap, mercifully hidden in the extended entry because there will be liberal use of extremely bad language. Also, I will be providing few links below; links to supporting information (as well as additional arguments) may be found here and here.

WARNING: Bad language ahead!

If your ears fall off and you grow hair on your palms, don't say you weren't warned.

The estate tax has been an important source of federal revenue for nearly a century.

There's the first lie. The estate tax has never provided more than 2% of federal revenues, and is generally about 1%.

It also encourages billions of dollars in charitable donations each year (http://www.cbpp.org/6-7-06tax.htm) since donations substantially reduce the tax on large estates.

Second lie. Charity is voluntary. Forcing it with the tax code is extortion. That's without even noting that much of that "charitable" giving is in the form of self-named organizations controlled by descendants (or in Bill Gates's case, his father).

Despite these benefits, a number of misconceptions continue to surround the tax.

"And we're doing our level best to perpetuate that."

Myth 1: Repealing the estate tax wouldn't significantly worsen the deficit because the tax doesn't raise much revenue.

Reality: Repealing the estate tax would add trillions of dollars to future deficits. Permanently repealing the estate tax would cost

Note how a supposed reduction in revenue becomes a "cost".

roughly $1 trillion over the first ten years of extension, 2012-2021. This cost includes $808 billion in lost revenue and $222 billion in increased interest payments on the national debt. (The official ten-year cost estimate is much lower: $387 billion. But that estimate is misleading because it covers an earlier ten-year period, 2007-2016, that captures only the cost of five years of extending repeal.) Given the current fiscal situation — and, more importantly, the looming budgetary challenges posed by the baby boomers' retirement — it would be extremely unwise (http://www.cbpp.org/6-5-06tax.htm) for the federal government to forgo such large revenues.

Actual Reality: It's still only about 1% of revenues, hardly enough to make a dent in the deficit. It also ignores the studies that indicate that, because repeal provides more money for investment, there is a larger increase in other revenues from a more productive economy.

I also find it irritating that they use a ten-year period to make it look like a bigger number. They're not the only ones that do it, but it's still chickenshit.

Myth 2: The estate tax forces estates to turn over half of their assets to the government.

Reality: The few estates that pay any estate tax at all generally pay less than 20 percent of the value of their estate in taxes. Roughly 99 percent of estates pay no estate tax at all. Among the few estates that do owe taxes, the "effective" tax rate — that is, the percentage of the estate that is paid in taxes — averaged about 20 percent in 2004, according to the IRS, far below the top estate tax rate of 49 percent that these estates faced (http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax.htm). Why is the effective tax rate so much lower than the top tax rate? Estate taxes are due only on the portion of an estate's value that exceeds the exemption level, not on the entire estate. For example, at today's $2.0 million exemption level, a $2.5 million estate would owe estate taxes on $500,000 at most. In addition, a large portion of the estate's remaining value can be shielded from taxation through available deductions (for charitable bequests and state estate taxes paid, for instance). It's also worth noting that the effective estate tax rate will fall below 20 percent over the next few years, as the exemption level rises and the top estate tax rate declines.

Actual Reality: Mostly they got this one right, but there is a huge lie buried in it (more than one lie, in fact).

About 1% of estates are currently subject to the death tax (it was 2% not long ago), and they do indeed pay less than the top tax rate. That's partly because of the exemption and partly because the top tax rate applies only to the amount in the top bracket. Just like income taxes. But that's a very minor fib compared to the big one.

And, of course, they are taking an average of all the estates to get the "effective estate tax rate". That's like averaging all taxpayers to get the "effective income tax rate" – it's an interesting overall number, but it's not terribly meaningful to average across different tax brackets. As a side note, it is also interesting to note that the largest estates typically pay lower rates than moderate estates; In 2002, estates over $20 million paid an average of 12.7%, while those in the range of $2.5 to $5 million paid 12.9%, and the brackets in between paid higher. And the Kennedys* still pay nothing. But again, those are minor fibs compared to the big one.

"the effective estate tax rate will fall below 20 percent over the next few years, as the exemption level rises and the top estate tax rate declines" - Just reading that, one might get the impression that the exemption level is rising over the next few years. It's not. It will remain at $2 million through 2008, so as property and business valuations increase, more people will be hit with it and the "effective tax rate" will increase. They don't tell you that part; let's call it "fib by omission".

Then, in 2009, the exemption will increase to $3.5 million and the "effective tax rate" will drop because some fewer people will be subject to the death tax than in the year before (the nominal tax rates also change). In 2010, there will be no death tax collected.

But here's the BIG LIE: this piece never mentions that in 2011 the exemption goes back to $1 million (and the top tax rate goes to 50%). Think about how much land prices (both home and farm) have increased in recent years. Think about how many people have IRAs and similar vehicles. How many of those estates will be valued at over $1 million five years from now? A lot of people who don't consider themselves rich are going to be very unpleasantly surprised.

Myth 3: Many small, family-owned farms and businesses must be liquidated to pay estate taxes.

Reality: The number of small, family-owned farms and businesses that owe any estate tax is small — and shrinking rapidly.

Okay, this one has so many lies in it I have to break up the reality check. "Shrinking rapidly" is a flat out fucking lie. The number is increasing because the exemption is not currently changing (see above) and the increase in land prices is far outstripping inflation.

Despite oft-repeated claims that the estate tax has dire consequences for family farms and small businesses, there is in fact very little evidence that it has an outsize impact on these groups. Indeed, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes.

So the fact that most managed scrape together money to pay the death tax (money that could have been invested in farm operations) is supposed to be a point in its favor?

Most recently, an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirms that exceedingly few family farms and small businesses face the estate tax (http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-05tax.htm and http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/65xx/doc6512/07-06-EstateTax.pdf). The CBO report found that if the current exemption level of $2.0 million had been in place in 2000, only 123 farm estates and only 135 family-owned businesses nationwide would have owed any estate tax.

There's an uninteresting and FUCKING MEANINGLESS statistic. How many were actually affected at the $1million exclusion level that was in place in 2000? They don't seem to want to say, but it's cleverly hidden one of their links (I'm not being facetious; read the wording in the link to see how they dance around the number): it's about 10 times the number of farms and four times the number of businesses.

The number of taxable farm estates drops to 65 nationwide at a $3.5 million exemption level, the level that takes effect in 2009. The number of taxable family-owned business estates falls to just 94 under the $3.5 million exemption.

Again, no mention that the exclusion goes back to $1 million just two years later.

The CBO report also found that of the few farm and family business estates that would owe any estate tax, the vast majority would have sufficient liquid assets (such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and insurance) in the estate to pay the tax without having to touch the farm or business. For instance, of the 65 farm estates that would have owed tax under a $3.5 million exemption, just 13 would have faced liquidity constraints.

Oh, that's comforting, rather comparable to saying that of the people who owe income tax most have enough money to pay it without selling the house.

Analyses by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center also find that that few small businesses and farms are subject to the estate tax (http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm).

I've seen "analyses" by the Brookings Institute before. They are not impressive. And have I mentioned that the exemption goes back to $1 million in 2011?

Myth 4: The estate tax is best characterized as the "death tax."

Well double fucking duh.

Reality: The estate tax would more appropriately be called an "inheritance tax," as it ultimately affects only the heirs of large estates.

It is NOT an "inheritance tax" because it is applied to the value of the estate, not to the portion that someone inherits (see my second link above for more detail). And, when they're not referring to the federal death tax, the IRS calls it "death tax". See IRS Form 706, lines 13 ("Credit for state death taxes") and 16 ("Credit for foreign death taxes").

Today, the estates of only 1 out of every 200 people who die owe any estate tax whatsoever, because the first $2.0 million of the value of any estate ($4.0 million for a couple) is totally exempt from the tax. (http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm) Further, the exemption level is scheduled to rise to $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple) in 2009 under current law. At this level, only 3 of every 1,000 people who die will have an estate large enough to owe any tax.

And what about in 2011, asshole?

That is why repealing the estate tax, which some people describe as "killing the death tax," has been described more aptly by others as the "Paris Hilton tax cut" after Paris Hilton, the heir to the Hilton hotel fortune.

If it weren't so fucking pathetic, this would be amusing. Paris Hilton may be a spoiled, rich brat with an overused backside but she is not an heiress. Her father is still alive. So is her grandfather. However she came by whatever money she has, it wasn't through inheritance.

Myth 5: The estate tax unfairly punishes success.

Reality: The estate tax affects only those most able to pay

No, those "most able to pay" are less affected than those less able to pay but still required to. That would be families whose largest asset is not liquid, such as farms and small businesses. And, once again, we must remember that those "most able to pay" are also the ones who have enough money to avoid it altogether (names like Ford, Rockefeller, Buffet, and Kennedy*).

and the funds it raises are used to support a range of programs that benefit the nation.

And even more programs that don't benefit the nation, but that's a different discussion. And again, it's only about 1% of total federal revenues so it's pretty meaningless.

The estate tax is the most progressive component

or would be if the richest actually paid it

of a tax code that overall is only modestly progressive (particularly when regressive state and local taxes are taken into account).

and would be more progressive if it weren't for tax lawyers catering to the super rich.

The money it raises funds

only about 1% of

essential programs, from health care to education to defending the nation.

And a huge shitload of non-essential programs.

If the estate tax were repealed, then other taxpayers — presumably those that are more numerous and less well-off than those paying the estate tax — would have to foot the bill for these programs,

Not if we just kill the useless programs.

face cuts in the benefits and services provided,

Oh, I WISH

or bear the burden of a higher national debt.

ONE PERCENT, dumbass

Like other Americans, the very wealthy benefit from public investments in areas such as defense, education, health care, scientific research, environmental protection, and infrastructure, and they rely even more than others on the government's protection of individual property rights (since they have so much more to protect).

Okay, credit where credit is due. This is one of the more creative arguments the Left has come up with. "They have more property, so they get more benefit from property rights." It's still nonsensical, but it's creatively nonsensical.

Bill Gates, Sr., a prominent advocate of the estate tax,

who owes his rather large salary, in part, to the estate tax

explains, "The reason the estate tax makes so much sense is that there is a direct relationship between the net worth people have when they pass on and where they live. The government that protects their business activities, the traditions that enable them to rely on certain things happening, that's what creates capital and enables net worth to increase." (http://www.cbpp.org/6-1-06tax-transcript.pdf)

"at which point, the government takes it away unless you're REALLY rich."

Myth 6: Eliminating the estate tax would encourage people to save and thereby make more capital available for investment.

Reality: Eliminating the estate tax wouldn't dramatically affect private saving, and it would greatly increase government dissaving (i.e., deficits).

There's an incredibly stupid comment. "Saving" means not spending.

A recent Congressional Research Service report found that the estate tax's net impact on private saving is unclear — it causes some people to save more and others to save less — and that its overall impact on national saving is likely negative. "[I]f the only objective [of eliminating the estate tax] were increased savings," the report concluded, "it would probably be more effective to simply keep the estate and gift tax and use the proceeds to reduce the national debt."

Somebody help me out here. How exactly does reducing the national debt help me save, especially when the government is supposed to take money from me to do it?

The reason is simple: while repealing the estate tax might lead some people to save more, it also would lead the government to borrow more to offset the lost revenue.

Help me out again. Are they actually equating people's savings to government borrowing?

Government borrowing "soaks up" capital that would otherwise be available for investment in the economy.

Jesus Christ, it just gets deeper and deeper. Government taking money in any way, shape, or form removes capital. Not taking so much money (leaving more to invest) stimulates the economy and produces more tax revenue.

In the case of repealing the estate tax, the added government borrowing would more than outweigh any added private saving, leaving the economy no better off, and quite possibly worse off (http://www.cbpp.org/6-8-06tax.htm)

Of course, if West Virginia would just throw Robert Byrd out of the Senate the deficit would go away.

Myth 7: The estate tax constitutes "double taxation" because it applies to assets that already have been taxed once as income.

Reality: Large estates are comprised [sic] mostly of "unrealized" capital gains that have never been taxed; the estate tax is the only means of taxing this income. Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or artwork, are only paid when the asset is sold. Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies. These "unrealized" capital gains can make up a significant share of an estate's total value (http://www.cbpp.org/6-17-05tax.htm), especially among large estates — the ones likely to owe estate tax. One reason the estate tax was created was to serve as a backstop to the income tax, taxing income that was never taxed under the income tax. That is, the taxation of this income is essentially deferred and ultimately taxed for the first time through the estate tax.

Actual Reality: This may be right for many large estates. Or not. It depends on how often the investments in the estate are turned over (such turnovers being taxable events). I think it's a good bet that the largest estates (the "super rich") don't have the same mix of stocks/bonds/whatever they had some years ago; if this is the case, then they have sold capital assets and paid capital gains taxes. That makes the estate tax a "double tax" on those assets.

And for those smaller estates with only a farm or small business as the major asset, it is true that they would not pay capital gains tax until the property is sold. So what? It's not like these people are the "super rich".

And for those poor bastards who have private retirement accounts, it is literally double taxation (see point 6 here).

Myth 8: If the estate tax is reformed and retained, the logical top tax rate would be 15 percent, the same as the capital gains rate.

Reality: To match the effective tax rate on capital gains, the top estate tax rate would have to be 35-40 percent, not 15 percent. Since the estate tax serves in part to tax capital gains that have not been taxed, some people have proposed taxing estates at the capital gains rate of 15 percent. But the capital gains rate is typically applied to all capital gains income, whereas the estate tax is applied only to part of the estate (see Myth 2 above). As a result, a 15 percent top estate tax rate would result in an effective tax rate on taxable estates of only 5 or 6 percent — about one-third of the capital gains rate. A top estate tax rate of 35-40 percent would be needed to generate an effective rate of 15 percent. Moreover, from the standpoint of the effect on the deficit and the national debt, cutting the top estate tax rate to 15 percent rate would differ little from repealing the tax entirely. Tax Policy Center and Joint Committee on Taxation estimates indicate that with a 15 percent top rate and an exemption level of $2 million, the tax would lose nearly 70 percent of the revenue that would be lost under repeal. With a 15 percent rate and a $5 million exemption, the loss would grow to nearly 85 percent. (http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax.htm)

Actual Reality: This is getting tiresome. Revenues are miniscule and already dealt with. The only point of this argument seems to be that they need to tax "unrealized gains" at the same rate as usual capital gains. But if it is true (I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is) that assets of the largest estates are already being taxed on capital gains, then this just becomes a way to accelerate capital gains taxation on less wealthy people. People with farms and small businesses, maybe even just a decent house in an absurdly over-priced area. Regular people. Remember what happens in 2011?

Myth 9: The cost of complying with the estate tax is nearly equal to the total amount of revenue the tax raises.

Reality: The cost of estate tax compliance is modest, and is not much different than the cost of complying with other taxes. Studies find that all of the various public and private costs associated with estate tax compliance (http://www.cbpp.org/6-14-05tax.htm) — including the IRS's costs of administering the tax and the cost taxpayers bear in terms of estate planning and administering an estate when a person dies — are about 7 percent of estate tax revenues.

Uh huh. The link they provide is to themselves. Forgive me if I don't swallow it without corroboration, especially since (see my previous links) there are estimates that the death tax is a net loser for the government.

These costs are consistent with the compliance costs for other taxes. For instance, administrative and compliance costs represent about 14.5 percent of revenue for the individual and corporate income taxes, 3-5 percent for value added taxes, and 2-5 percent for the sales tax. Furthermore, the estate tax compliance burden will disappear for a growing number of families each year under current law, as the exemption level rises and fewer estates are subject to the estate tax.

Again with this motherfucking lie, you lying motherfuckers.

Sorry. Lost my composure.

Part of the confusion around the cost of estate tax compliance is that some estimates incorrectly include the cost of activities that would be necessary even in the absence of an estate tax — hiring estate executors and trustees, drafting provisions and documents for the disposition of property, and allocating bequests among family, for example. These activities account for about half of all costs sometimes associated with estate planning.

But those costs are almost certainly more expensive if one also has to plan for the death tax (if anyone has better information, please comment). This argument also doesn't take into account assets that are diverted into less productive uses to avoid the tax, nor monies funneled into insurance policies that would not be necessary but for the death tax.

Face it. The death tax cannot be justified on revenue grounds because it simply doesn't raise much revenue. It can't be justified as an attack on the "super rich" because it simply doesn't affect the "super rich" like it affects the moderately rich (and the non-rich, in 2011). It cannot even be justified as a way to redistribute assets from rich to poor (more accurately, from rich to government), because it is piss poor at doing that if your name isn't Kennedy*.

Much better arguments without the potty mouth can be found at my two links above, including the immortal Edward Boyd line:

If Joe had just left the money outright to Teddy and his other sons, is there any doubt that Ted would have pissed away his share long ago on bourbon and hookers alone.

Words to live by.

*If you wonder why the name "Kennedy" keeps coming up, it's because my family of working stiffs has paid more in death taxes on a family ranch than the Kennedys paid on Papa Joe's millions. No wonder Teddy the Hutt likes it. Bastard.

50 Smug, Condescending Questions

I'm not a Republican, but I still threw around the idea of answering the questions on this list one by one, until I realized how boring and stupid it is to even entertain the smug meanderings of people like this. I don't know what's funnier, reading the comments that reflect Elisberg's fervent yet laughable belief that this is a definitive laundry list of "Gotchas!" or the fact that he actually thinks the questions are friendly and non-confrontational.

India - Fuck Yeah

Arthur's Seat is hosting an "India - Fuck Yeah!" fest, though in it's typical polite and sublime fashion, with substitutional use of the eff word.

Syd III

Because all I did tonight was come home, cry and listen to an old tape recording made off of a bad record of The Madcap Laughs that I've had since I was a teenager (my old friend!) despite that I now own the same album on CD:

Shut up. This is my Elvis. This is my John Lennon. This is my Ghandi. Except it's not that lame. Syd and I had some things in common beyond love of music.

This one HURTS. It won't stop hurting.

Oh christ

I'm still laughing.

Syd II

Another favorite:

In answer to Ace's question

"Can you really [imagine] the right blogosphere remaining silent if one of ours went this far over the line?

No, I really can't.

One also feels compelled to point out that Schlussel did not threaten to kill or molest a toddler.

Syd

This is one of my favorite pictures:

Shine on, Syd

Shine on.

I can't even talk about it right now. The Syd we knew has been dead for decades and despite the fact that there's some peace in knowing he'll finally be left alone, this news has really wiped me out.

UPDATE: Let me make something clear: if you feel the urge to register your indifference to either Syd Barrett or Pink Floyd, do NOT do it here. If you don't care, skip over this post or go read another blog. I mean it. A man has died and if it doesn't matter to you, I don't want to hear about it. I've completely lost my patience with the arrogant "I don't give a crap" people who think it's their duty to tell everyone else what should or should not be important to them and on this day, it will make me so angry I'll be more rude than I've ever been before.

Oh good lord

Now Bush stole the Mexican election?

I wonder if he used Rove's evil weather machine.

Question

[Mostly rhetorical]

Is there actually a functioning testicle left in Great Britain?

[All due respect to our friends across the pond, but jeez, get out while you can!]

How appropriate II

I don't have a link, but I heard on the radio that Momma Sheehan is now blogging at something called "Marxist Thought Online".

But don't question her patriotism.

How appropriate

Heh (Via Allah)

Lana

Years ago I picked up a copy of Lana Turner's autobiography at a garage sale for something like a nickel. It's one of those things I'd been meaning to read for years and after Red's urging on Lana Turner day 'round the blogs a couple of weeks ago, I finally gave it a go this weekend. It's trashy, shallow, vain, pointless and let's face it, as most autobiographies go, it's probably further from the truth than most of the tabloid headlines that plagued Lana throughout her career. It took about five hours to read.

It is also the best book EVER. WRITTEN.

No, I'm not exaggerating. Lana Turner may have been a woman who came to acting just because of her looks that never exhibited any enormous range over the course of her career, but the appealing thing about her is that she never had any pretentions otherwise. She knew who she was, what brought her to the top and most importantly, how to stay there in the face of a number of scandals that would have had even the roughest shark of a publicist biting their nails in dumbfounded anguish. She never had delusions about her celebrity making her the most important person in the world. She never thought holding a press conference was going to help end poverty in Africa. She didn't pretend to be an expert on serious subjects she personally knew little about. And when it came time to tell her side of the story, she wrote the ultimate chick book of all time.

Clothes. Cars. Romance. Jewelry. Big houses. Exotic vacations. High but mostly avoidable drama. Soap opera-style tragedy. You name it, Lana lived it. This is a woman who thinks the idea of setting the record straight is to explain that she wasn't discovered in Schwab's wearing a tight sweater and drinking a chocolated malt, contrary to myth. She was at a cafe across the street from her high school and it was a Coke, because they only cost five cents and she couldn't afford malted chocolate. Glad you cleared that up, Lana. The nation can now sigh a collective relief as we live to see the end of the lie.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Lana Turner. I've only seen a handful of her movies, but it's her persona, her status as a Hollywood icon that's endured long after the end of her career and death that I adore so much. Mostly because, like I said before, she didn't take herself too seriously. She never harps on endlessly in an bombastic tone about her devotion to her "craft" or whatever. When she first started acting, she did it for the $50 a week it brought in, which was twice what her mother was making as a hairdresser.

Every noteworthy moment in her life is preceded by a description of what clothes and jewels she was wearing, right down to the color of her slip, as if these details were as important as the moments themselves. To Lana, they were. She once got in an argument with a director that ultimately lost her a film role because her character would have had to wear off-the-rack outfits. EXCUSE ME. Lana did not do "off-the-rack." Ever. The best thing about the story? She's got such a prosaic charm that she writes about the incident in such a way that made her appear perfectly reasonable for her protests.

She was married eight times to seven different men, some of them just barely or not quite nearly divorced, most of them after only being acquainted for a brief time. In the case of her first husband, Artie Shaw, the snobbish, arrogant band leader, she knew him for less than 24 hours. That marriage went sour in minutes and didn't last a year. Her longest marriage lasted four. Some of her husbands took advantage of her, some cheated and one left wihtout a word, but under no circumstances was any of this Lana's fault. In fact, nothing was. When people said she had mistreated them, she didn't understand why. She played a coy vixen, but never quite caught on that this, coupled with her bad judgement and impetuous nature, probably had a lot to do with attracting shitty men. She was an angel that only wanted to be a good wife and mother. And a famous, celebrated, globe-trotting actress with a glamorous and unpredictable lifestyle, never once seeming to grasp the impossible conflict between the two. Lana's biggest problem was that she wanted it all and let her heart break every time she couldn't have it.

The American public can be pretty fickle and unforgiving when it comes to our Hollywood icons, and Lana Turner never, ever forgot that. Despite her naivety and trustworthy-to-a-fault personality, the precarious nature of the business she worked in never escaped her. She knew she was lucky, perhaps even undeserving. She was often baffled by the attention she received, especially considering she found fame when she was just a teenager. She was always aware of her limitations and never thought of herself as some inspired genius bringing enlightenment to the unwashed masses. Like her friend Ava Gardner, she was first and foremost a glamour girl that entertained us at Saturday matinees and that, at least to me, is her the greatest charm and grace that makes her a legend who is not easy to forget.

Name That Movie

And on that note...

You Are Batman

Billionaire playboy by day. Saving the world by night. And you're not even a true superhero. Just someone with a lot of expensive toys!

Sure, I rigged the quiz to get that result. But then, wouldn't he?

Superman Returns

For the record, I think it pretty much sucked. The plot felt disjointed and random, and the dialogue on the part of most of the characters (but ESPECIALLY Brandon Routh as Superman/Clark Kent and Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane) felt wooden and unbelievable. Not quite to the Anakin and Amidala level, but still awful.

Highlights of what I actually did like: first, I'm very glad they kept John Williams's theme, and used it as the basis for the rest of the score. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to think of Superman without it. The archival footage/words from Marlon Brando as Jor-El are practically a part of this, too.

Second, casting Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. I don't think the script gave him the opportunity to really do enough with the character, but every now and then you see flashes of brilliance--of why Lex is one of THE great villains, not just of comic books but in general--moments where you find yourself agreeing with him, seeing his literal version of Nietzschean "Man versus Superman" and getting the point that, if his words were being spoken by someone with a conscience, the world probably wouldn't need a Superman. Humanity's reliance on such a deus ex machina is, to him, a crutch holding us back from our own potential accomplishments, and what stands out in my mind at the moment is his use of the analogy of Prometheus stealing fire from the gods: yes, it's obvious, but it works.

Third, I actually loved Parker Posey as Lex's girlfriend, Kitty Kowalski. Yes, she's a comedic ditz who goes from being oblivious to to being terrified of the fact that she's in over her head and involved with someone who it takes her the whole movie to realize is a megalomaniac. But she conveys a real humanity that's lacking from Clark and Lois. And finally, that's also why I liked James Marsden as Richard White, Daily Planet Editor-in-Chief Perry White's nephew and Lois's fiance: he's not a cutout, he's not a one-dimensional schmuck set up as an obvious fall-guy counterpoint to Superman in this romantic triangle, and in his smaller way, he's the kind of person who actually proves some of what Lex is saying about humanity, because he doesn't NEED superpowers to wind up being a hero.

OK, but all that said, the best part of the whole thing really was the preview for Spiderman 3: now there's a comic-book movie I already expect to be damn good.

Open Letters

Dear Office Building Manager,
Thanks for picking the hottest day of the year to shut down the building's climate control in order to have the new air conditioning system installed. It's not like I wasn't due for a heat stroke soon anyway.

Regards,

7/7

I've noticed from our activity log that a lot of people are looking for the "fuck yeah" post from one year ago today. I'll save you the time. It's here.

Anyone who posts their tributes or thoughts, I'm turning on the trackback, so if you want to ping this or drop the URL in the comments, feel free. I'm not very good at this "so many years on" contemplative anniversary stuff. Obviously. On the day itself, the most I could muster was a long string of obscenities, but I must have shared that in common with a lot of other people, because a whole shitload of you joined in. We closed the comments at around 1500.

So I leave the finer words to those of you that can do better.

Rolling Blubber

So I hear that Al Sharpton is going to join Momma Sheehan's "rolling fast" along with the other celebrities. However, being a long time veteran of actual political protest, he's not going to do this weenie-assed "one day and quit" thing. He's going to fast for 21 hours every single day, with no solid food and no liquid thicker than a milkshake.

As I understand it, his daily fast will be divided into three sections to forestall potential health risks. He will fast for a four hour block beginning at 8:00 am, followed by a five hour block beginning at 1:00 pm, then a brutal twelve hour marathon fast beginning at 7:00 pm. The marathon will be broken only by a symbolic "humanitarianism and patriotism" apple pie at about 9:00 pm.

The fast will continue until the troops are brought home or until Smoky Pete's All-You-Can-Eat Southern Barbecue Shack reopens from its current remodeling project, whichever comes first.

The Reverend Al hopes you appreciate his sacrifices.

Hooray

Oh hell YEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Mamma's Milk

This is too funny.

The courage of their convictions

Cindy Sheehan and crue are going on a hunger strike. Oh wait, no they're not.

Stars join anti-war hunger strike

Hollywood stars Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon are to join a fast protesting against the Iraq war.

Protestors will each give up food for 24 hours, with the "rolling fast" due to last until International Peace Day on 21 September.

Wow. A "rolling fast". Color me impressed with their fortitude.

Meanwhile, Momma Sheehan would prefer to live under Hugo Chavez than in the United States. Well, on this we agree; I would prefer that she live there also. But like all those idiots who promised to leave when Bush was elected, I'm sure she won't do it.

Thanks

To our people overseas following in their footsteps: Thank you.

"...our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor"

Happy Birthday, America

I want to wish everyone a happy 4th of July before shuffling off to do my patriotic duty by getting wasted and eating large amounts of high cholesterol foods. For our foreign visitors, well...have a nice Tuesday. For our boys and girls serving overseas who won't be as lucky to enjoy the day like the rest of us, every toast tomorrow will be in your honor. There aren't enough words to say thanks.

Cable Rant

I was laid up with a headache and other ailments for most of the weekend, leaving me with no amusement besides television. I was house-sitting for my technologically-challenged aunt, who doesn't own a DVD player and her scant video collection is nothing more than taped episodes of "Oprah" and a second-hand copy of Sideways, arguably one of the most boring movies ever made. Luckily, she's got satellite TV, so I wasn't limited to my usual thirteen channels of shit, but instead had two hundred channels of shit to choose from.

Which completely reminded me why I don't pay for cable.

What really drives me nuts more than the idea of paying fifty dollars a month for crap news networks, over-enthusiastic home shopping nitwits hawking tacky, over-priced costume jewelry, and music channels that don't devote a minute of programming to playing actual music are the fucking commercials.

First of all, I am now totally convinced that the first course requirement for will-bes in the advertising industry, like film school attendees, is a series of lectures on how stupid the American viewing public are. Lowest common denomenotar, people. They're all mindless sheep who will believe anything you tell them.

Is it some type of irony that the only kind of advertisements aired on the Woman Scorned Network (b.k.a. "The Lifetime Channel") are for shampoo, anti-wrinkle creams and cleaning supplies?

Whoever came up with the idea for those Carl's Jr. commercials featuring people eating like starved barnyard animals feeding at a trough should fucking die RIGHT NOW. They're disgusting.

I think the ones I hate the most are the moms who enter their kitchen only to discover that Precious has had a one-man foodfight and flung a stock pot of spaghetti all over the counters and floor but not before using the refrigerator as a finger painting canvas and conducting marching drills over the kitchen table with muddy boots. Mom gives that happy, "isn't that so cuuuuttte" grin, shaking her head in amusement since, luckily, she's got Cleaning Product X, which will now only require that she spend most of her afternoon undoing Junior's handywork, as opposed to a month like it used to take in the olden days when all housewives had available was lye and homemade soap. Fuck you. If Darling Little One was old enough to spend the time unsurpervised to make a mess that big, he's old enough to clean the damn kitchen himself. No responsible mom in the universe would walk into a room trashed by an untamed brat and thank God for Mister Clean before delivering Junior a whup-ass.

I don't have any pretentions about television snobbery and can't stand people who do, so I'm not above devoting a couple of hours to a show about childish celebrity rivalries. Thanks to this, I am now in command of the priceless knowledge that Lindsay Lohan and Hillary Duff don't like each other very much. And people say the E! Channel is not educational.

I also tried to watch car wreck that is "The Simple Life," but ten minutes into it, I couldn't decide who I wanted to kill more: myself, Paris and Nicole, or the parents that would let these two vapid, useless gutter-sluts anywhere near their children.

Ashlee Simpson is stunningly stupid and I cannot stand to watch her talking for more than about two minutes before my thoughts drift to extreme violence.

Somebody just come up with a damn "Law and Order" channel already and spare TBS or USA or whichever one it is the daily marathon.

Speaking of which, Christopher Meloni totally has that hot, brooding cop thing going ON.

Most networks push their "original programming" so aggressively that by the time the show actually airs, you can piece together the clips with no surprises. Not that "original" is a word that really even applies, since every new show these days seems to be about someone with the supernatural powers to talk to dead people or read minds or cops that can travel back in time or whatever. For an industry of people who think their audience are the dumb ones, they really know how to take a mindless idea and beat it into the ground until even the fatigue becomes stale.

I finally caught the remake of The Producers on pay-per-view. I'd been putting it off, since I'm such a huge fan of the 1968 version and don't really like musicals, which this rendition became, in general (with a few exceptions). It had moments, but give me the original complete with the classic audition of LSD any day.

So, tomorrow it's back to sticking to "The Alfred Hitchcock Hour" on KDOC* and the horrid documentaries on PBS with cheesy re-enactments that make high school drama departments look like high-end Broadway. Until then, I'll be enjoying "Girls Gone Wild" adverts in between low-brow entertainment featuring Playboy bunnies making cookies for our overseas troops** and generic cop shows while nursing an aching back with pain killers and cherry cokes.

*talk about bad commercials, no matter how redeeming in their comedic inspiration. It's always old people playing bridge and talking about how amazed they are at being eligible for full coverage life insurance for the price of a cup of coffee despite the fact that they're 95, have five kinds of terminal cancer, one kidney and no legs.

**Another important thing I've learned from my weekend television adventures: a woman can apparently have a nice body, big (probably fake) boobs and long blond hair but have a butt-ugly face and still be considered attractive (*cough* Jessica Simpson *cough*).

If it's Sunday...

...then it's time for the broadcast networks' weekly circle-jerks known as the "Sunday-morning new shows," and this week, for said circle-jerks to circle the wagons (to badly mix metaphors) around the New York Times. I'm not going to bother commenting at length when Gerard Vanderleun basically says everything that I could and more, more eloquently. I'd only add that I am, of course, a big fan of quite a few perversions, but not the more serious ones he's going after.

Now I have to rush off to see Superman Returns, of which a review to follow shortly.

(link thanks to Tammy)