Cain Ticker

Galileo Ticker

Nuclear Winter Wonderland Ticker

Monday, March 31, 2008

Casanova


Last time I was in NYC, my friend Jordan impressed upon me a comic book by Matt Fraction called Casanova. At the time I balked; I didn't really know who Matt Fraction was and I definitely couldn't afford the hardcover collection in the store.

Well, last week the book (which collects the first 7 issues) came out in trade. $12.99. Jordan has rarely steered me wrong, so I bought the book and took it home and gave it a whirl.

And read it twice.

Not because it's weird and dense (although it is). And not because it presents a completely new world without even a hint of exposition (nope, not even a hint of a hint).

I read it twice because it was so damn fun.

The premise, essentially, is this: the bad seed son of a military dictator (who has a loving daughter) is transported to an alternate reality where he's the good seed and the daughter's the villain. Except there's also a giant floating brain (three brains, really). And did I mention the protagonist and his sister have strange undefined powers? Or that the supporting cast includes an island of spear-throwing primitives, a giant Japanese robot, and an evil mastermind who's wrapped head-to-foot in bandages?

Imagine the TV show Alias if Philip K. Dick were on the writing staff and you're beginning to get the drift.

(Word count: 7,652)

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Why Google went dark



Word count: 6,980

Saturday, March 29, 2008

More Trailer Park! More! More!



Feel free to pre-order your own copy riiiiight here.

(Word count: 6,382)
(Title: ?)

Friday, March 28, 2008

Get me out of the church on time

He may be a little sleazy, but he's also, most of the time, more than a little right:

New Rule: Catholics Must Get Up Out of the Pew and Walk Out of the Church Forever

Bill Maher | Bio


When Barack Obama didn't hear Reverend Wright say those awful things about America, he still should have rushed the stage, smite Reverend Wright with the cross, and left the church. If there's anything the right wing can agree on, it's that. And that gays are going hell, right after they suck them off in the airport bathroom.

But it raises an obvious question, one that I haven't heard asked, which is strange because it's so obvious: If you leave a church when the head of the church says bad things about America, what do you do when your church hierarchy is caught up in a systematic and decades-long sex abuse scandal? And did I mention the people being sexually abused were children? Hundreds of them?

How about when the head of that church, or Pope, associated with and promoted members of the clergy who not only facilitated the sexual abuse and rape of hundreds and hundreds of children, but engaged in a decades-long cover-up of those crimes?

Reverend Wright associated with Farrakhan. The Pope works with Cardinal Law. Which is worse? Isn't it the man who shuffled "priests" like Shanley and Geoghan and many others from parish to parish with the full knowledge of their crimes, and then claimed he had no idea?

Yes, by Sean Hannity's own logic, Catholics like him, en masse, would be expected to abandon their church. Which shouldn't be a problem, because they worship Reagan anyway.

COLMES: Then shouldn't John McCain say he doesn't support the views of a man who makes anti-Catholic statements?
OBENSHAIN: He did, I believe. He said I'm not--I don't agree with everything -- a
COLMES: And Obama says he does not support anti-Semitism, as expressed by Louis Farrakhan.
HANNITY: Leave the church.

Well, what about it, Sean? Shouldn't you leave your church? I mean, like, five years ago?

And since you haven't, how do we know you're not also a secret child fucker? Again, just using your logic:
HANNITY: ...What if he really deep down in his heart thinks like Pastor Wright?
LUNTZ: It's not for anyone to answer that question.
HANNITY: Well, is that dangerous for this country? I think that would be dangerous. That would mean we would have -- if he agreed with Wright, and I don't know that he does, but if he did, that would mean a racist and an anti-Semite would be president of the United States.

Side note: Does it occur to anyone that, for the past five years, the nuts every politician has been busy distancing themselves from--Reverend Wright, Reverend Falwell, Reverend Hagee, Reverend Haggard, Reverend Robertson--are all, you know, reverends?

Why don't we just go back to the days when politicians kept their religions to themselves? Wasn't that better?



Word count: 5,710. Two chapters down, twenty-eight to go.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

I'm thinkin' Arby's...and a nap



I'm coughy and sleepy. But Arby's has a kickass chocolate turnover.

Word count: 5,330

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Max!!

IMDb Resume Presents Deric McNish
Resume If you're just breaking into the business, the best return for your dollar may be IMDb Resume in order to maximize your exposure. When you sign up, you can add a resume, photos or both -- you'll get three photos (one headshot, two gallery photos) and you can also create a resume in our resume builder. Deric McNish is starting to build his list of credits, but he's also added an extensive resume and three images to his photo gallery to make his IMDb page stand out from the crowd. Ensure that you (or your client) have the best possible presentation on the IMDb and submit your resume and photos today.



(FYI: This is my friend Deric from college. Hire him.)

A slice of schaedenfreude

From CBS news:

Boyfriend Of Woman Stuck To Toilet Charged

Authorities Say Man Mistreated Girlfriend By Allowing Her To Stay In Bathroom For 2 Years

Answers.com

(CBS/AP) A man whose girlfriend authorities say spent nearly two years in a bathroom in their house, sitting on the toilet so long that the seat adhered to her body, has been charged with mistreatment of a dependent adult.

Kory McFarren, 37, was charged Monday in Ness County District Court.

McFarren called the Ness County Sheriff's Office in late February to say something was wrong with his girlfriend. When authorities arrived at the home, they found Pam Babcock, 35, stuck to the toilet, which they think she had sat on for about a month.

McFarren told authorities that Babcock feared leaving the bathroom and may not have left it in two years, although said he was unsure how long she was in there. He said that he took her food and water daily, and that he repeatedly asked her to come out but that she usually replied "maybe tomorrow."

"The only thing I am guilty of is I didn't get her help sooner," McFarren told The Associated Press nearly a week ago.

Ness County Attorney Craig Crosswhite said the mistreatment charge most closely fit the situation.

"I looked at the statutes and spoke to the attorney general's office," he said. "This was a very unusual set of circumstances, and this is the law that most closely applied to the situation."

Authorities said Babcock sat on the toilet so long that open sores developed and caused her to become attached to the seat. Sheriff Bryan Whipple has said that he used a pry bar to remove the seat from the toilet, and that the woman was taken to the hospital with the seat still attached.

"She would have to be sleeping on the toilet," Whipple said.

Doctors at a Wichita hospital where Babcock was taken told McFarren that an infection in her legs had damaged her nerves and could leave her in a wheelchair. She was still at the hospital Wednesday night.

"How in the world could someone let her stay there for 2 years and not get help of some kind from somewhere?" Babcock's first cousin Carmern McNamara asked CBS News affiliate WIBW-TV in Topeka.

McNamara says Pamela was close to her family until 15 years ago when she went to live with McFarren, but McFarren says it was Pamela's decision not to talk to her family.

McFarren's first court appearance will be in April, Crosswhite said.


You can't make shit like that up.

P.S. Word count: 4,815

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Progress, progress

Word count so far: 4,139/~90,000

Novel writing's a marathon, though, not a sprint, so I prefer to think of it like this: 3,000 words per chapter (approximately). 3,000 words is a much less daunting number than 90,000, don't you think?

Thirty chapters, ~3,000 words each, and I'll be finished.

Unless it all goes to hell.

Monday, March 24, 2008

New is the new old

I've started working on a new novel.

Normally I keep such matters close to the vest out of superstition, but this time I have a blog, so with this new novel and new blog, I'm going to attempt a new openness. The worst that can happen is I jinx myself, my project, and the moon crashes into the sea.

I don't have a title yet but I am about 2/3 finished with the first chapter. It's a thriller. Much darker than Nuclear. High body count. The villain in Nuclear was pitiful. The villain here is just plain pissed.

Everyone loves a good villain, right?

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Happy Easter!

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Once more with Buffy

This week, the cast and writers behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer reunited in Los Angeles for a panel discussion as part of an annual series of TV events at the Paley Theatre. Here is a snippet of the goodness:

Friday, March 21, 2008

(She had me) in stitches!

Four stitches, to be exact. Yes, today was my major minor surgery. It took about a half hour. Several ounces of me is now in a jar (all hail the Surgery Diet). I don't have much else to say about it.

Anyway, in honor of Good Friday, here's the ending to my favorite Biblical film of all time:

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Views on Interviews

Today I interviewed for my job.

Like the majority of college faculty in this country, I am a term-to-term instructor. I am hired (and fired) every year. Term-to-term instructors collect no health benefits in the summer (even if they are teaching summer classes) and accumulate no actuated experience. Thus, I have been teaching at the same college since 2004 but have never received a raise. Nor would I, or any term-to-term instructor, ever be offered one. The only path to advancement lies in tenure-track instruction (assistant professorships, associate professorships, etc.).

Today I interviewed for my job.

Basically, it's the same job I've been doing since 2004 - only now it is tenure-track. I had to reapply, resend my transcriptions, reacquire letters of recommendation, etc. The position I applied for was created by my dean and requires the applicant to possess Masters degrees in both English and theatre. How many of us can there be?

Today I interviewed for my job.

The first 15 minutes of the interview were a presentation. I had been notified in advance to prepare a 15-minute lesson suitable to a first- or second-year English classroom. Since I will be giving a guest lecture next week on Greek theater, I already had my notes in that subject and chose to present that to the committee. My presentation was not terrible, but I think it was obvious I was a little nervous. I am much more comfortable in a classroom.

After my presentation, one of the committee members turned to me and said, "We have a surprise for you."

As an interviewee, these are not words you want to hear.

The surprise, it turns out, was this: they handed me Scene 2 of The Glass Menagerie and brought in two student actors (who I did not know) and then observed as I proceeded to direct the student actors in the scene. Fortunately, I am very familiar with the play, but still. It is for experiences like this we Jews invented the Yiddish phrase oy vey.

The next half hour were the questions. These I was prepared for, and these I think I handled fairly well. It's difficult to really gauge your success in a job interview, but all things considered (including the surprise) I think I managed to do a decent job. I should find out the results at the end of April (which means the middle of May). Wish me luck!

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

And now, the Junior Senator from New York

As promised, for the sake of contrast and comparison, here's a relatively recent speech (October 10, 2002) by Senator Clinton:

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

P.S. By the way, on a related note, today the Iraq War turns five years old. What gift do you get for the war who has everything?

Star Wars According to a 3-Year Old

One of my students, Stevie Schulte, introduced me to this bit of Youtube ingeniousness:



It's funny because it's true.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama on Race

I know, I know. I promised I would avoid discussing politics here. But isn't it more negligent to ignore the elephant in the room (or donkey, as the case may be)? Anyway, here's a copy of Barack Obama's response to criticism regarding his former pastor, the outspoken Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

I'm of the opinion that the office of the President of the United States should be inhabited by a person of eloquence and leadership. These are the primary skills. If Thomas Jefferson was not a great orator (and by all accounts, he wasn't), he was extraordinarily persuasive in prose; if Andrew Jackson was not a great writer (and by all accounts, he wasn't), he was extraordinarily persuasive in person. Yes, the office is one of power, but a good leader uses power only when necessary, and the framers of the Constitution, reacting to the British monarchy, deliberately limited the scope of the President's authority.

The true gauge of a President's mettle is not how he or she will react to a 3am phone call. The true gauge is how he or she will communicate not only to the American people but to the people of the world. I reprinted here a recent speech by Senator Obama. Tomorrow I'll do the same for Senator Clinton. Decide for yourself. It's your right.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Why So Few Great Movies Get Produced

Sitcom veteran Ken Levine (M*A*S*H*, Cheers, Fraiser) maintains one of the most reliably readable blogs on the Web. He updates it daily and manages to provide a chuckle or two with every post. I want to reprint his latest post, and then I want to offer my .02:

If a major studio gave notes on JUNO

Diablo Cody won an Oscar for the screenplay of JUNO. Whether you like the movie or not you’ve got to agree that the film had a distinctive voice and clear vision. But that’s because it was sold to an independent. If Cody had sold the spec script to a major Hollywood studio however, this is the notes memo I imagine the producer would receive:

First of all the title is confusing. JUNO. It’s the same name as that city in Alaska, even spelled the same way. Research tells us that Nina is a popular name with the target demographic. Also Kristin, Chloe, and Caitlin (but with a C, not a K).

When Juno says “it all started with a chair”, we’re missing an opportunity for a block comedy scene and a trailer moment by not seeing the actual sex act between Juno and her boyfriend. Make it funny and not explicit of course. We’re missing a bet for physical comedy – two horny teenagers, a chair – imagine young versions of Jim Carrey and Carol Burnett. Wow!

In this current draft the parents react to Juno’s pregnancy announcement by accepting it. This seems false. We’ve certainly never seen a scene like this. We believe they should be furious. Unless they really scream at Juno we don’t believe they love her.

The very notion of an abortion clinic is a downer. Not to mention controversial. Do we even have to raise this issue? How ever they handled it in KNOCKED UP, just do that.

Are there really cheeseburger phones? Let’s just make it a cellphone so we can sell the product placement.

Can Juno’s girlfriend be funnier? Give her a “tude” as the kids say. As it is now she’s just supportive and quirky and allows Juno to describe her true feelings so what’s the point?

We love when Juno’s mother tells off the ultra-sound person. Do more of that. Let her tell off Juno’s teachers. Let her tell off the kids who don’t approve of Juno. It’s even worth adding characters so the mom can tell them off too.

You set up this great potential relationship with Juno and the yuppie husband but never pay it off. What if they sleep together? Think of all the fun complications that could cause. Not to mention all the possibilities for comedy. Sex with someone with a big belly – clumsily trying to find a good position, she could be on top of him and crush him with her weight, he could hurt his back. Again, nothing explicit but there’s got to be a way of making sex with a middle aged man and a pregnant teenager hysterical.

At the end the teen boyfriend/father should declare that he won’t let Juno give away her baby – THEIR baby. Just picturing that moment gives us chills. And when Juno sees her baby for the first time, her heart melts…and trust us, test scores will go right through the roof. Juno realizes there’s no way she could give up this precious child to someone else and she and the father agree to raise it themselves. It’s more satisfying and sets us right up for the sequel. Remember, we’re not making movies, we’re making franchises.

Casting: Ellen Page will not sell tickets. We’ve taken the liberty of slipping the script to Miley Cyrus along with a firm offer. If she passes we feel Amy Adams could play young.

We like your suggestion of Jennifer Garner but not as the yuppie wife. The part of Juno’s mother is bigger and has that great scene with the ultrasound technician. Not that Allison Janney isn’t a gifted actress but with that much screen time we’d prefer someone who is more attractive. Jason Bateman we’ve never heard of. We understand he comes from television. Ben Affleck would be a better choice. For the friend we envision that girl from HAIRSPRAY. The minute you see her on the screen you know – comic relief.

Jason Reitman is a talented director but very “independenty”. Tom Shadyac is looking for something after EVAN ALMIGHTY. We’ve been trying to get into business with him since THE NUTTY PROFESSOR. This could be the project. We’ve also taken the liberty of making a firm offer.

And finally, the dialogue in this script is way too stylized. Half the time we have no idea what the characters are saying. We have grave concerns that this baby writer does not have the skill or experience to elevate this script to the level of AMERICAN PIE, which is how we envision it. We strongly recommend you replace her. We have a list of approved writers – all Ferrally Brothers veterans.

JUNO has the chance to become a breakout hit. Funny, provocative, and deeply touching. But first we have to change it radically from its present form.


So here's the thing: on one hand, this piece works as functional satire. It's topical, it's specific, and it's very amusing. On the other hand, though, as with the best satire (e.g. Jonathan Swift), Mr. Levine's subtext is vitriolic. He is disgusted with Hollywood idealizing pragmatic neutrality. And he's absolutely right. In the brief time I've spent dealing with Hollywood producers, I've received notes similar to the ones satirized above. All of the notes were well-intended, and many of them were helpful, but some were as - if not more - ludicrous than Mr. Levine's fictional examples.

Pragmatic neutrality is all about pleasing the masses and offending no one. If that is a recipe for great art, then the Carpenters would be the peak of 20th century music and The Waltons would be the best TV show of all time. But great art must takes risks. Great art is confrontational (even if that tension comes in the "low" forms of farce or slapstick). When risk and confrontation and, save us, originality are whittled away, all that's left is pap.

Yes, pap sometimes makes money at the box office. The Carpenters sold a bunch of records and The Waltons boasted a high viewership. And a confession: I like the Carpenters and The Waltons. Sometimes I'll listen to the Carpenters, watch The Waltons, and enjoy a box of Wheat Thins. Blandness has its place. But shouldn't we encourage our artists to aspire to something greater?

Sunday, March 16, 2008

More Trailer Park!

Our third and final book trailer of the weekend is for Peter Clenott's Hunting the King:


Saturday, March 15, 2008

Trailer Park!

Here's MADicine, by Derek Armstrong:

Friday, March 14, 2008

Happy trails!

Another book trailer, this one for Bathtub Admirals (great title!), which comes out next month:



I'm excited.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

The results are in!

No, I don't mean the American Idol results.

As regular readers of this blargh know, I had a pair of biopsies last week. The doctor just called and told me that one of them came back perfectly harmless and one of them...not so much. It's not cancer (yay!), but it is a dysplastic mole (boo!). Basically, a dysplastic mole such as mine has a high probability of developing into melanoma (double boo!), so next week my doctor is going to chop it off. Thwack!

All things considered, good news. Prevention is always preferable to treatment, don't you think?

Food for thought

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

An Etymological Interlude

In ancient Greece, when Thespis decided to honor the god Dionysus by grandstanding, a new profession was born. In the springtime, following Thespis' example, young men would don masks and robes and reenact the tales of heroes and gods. The masks were essential - not only did they delineate character, but they allowed the wearers to skirt accusations of blasphemy ("I don't really think I'm a god. See, it's just a mask.")

But what to call these practitioners in this new art of drama in which one pretender converses on stage with another pretender? What label could adequately describe this new profession? Because their primary function was to provide a dialectic onstage with the chorus, the Greeks decided to call these new men "answerers." The Greeks lauded these new "answerers" and many joined their leagues and performed in the springtime at their many theater festivals.

By the 4th century BC, this new word shows up outside of context of the theater. The great Athenian statesman Demothenes used it in one of his speeches to defame a rival. By calling him an "answerer," he was in effect comparing the rival to a fabricator in a mask, and even after the fall of the Hellenic civilization, the word continued to maintain this secondary, derogatory meaning.

"Answerer," of course, is a modern English translation of this ancient word. The actual word in Greek was a combination of two roots, hypo + krinomai.

Hypokrite
.

This lesson is dedicated with love to Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Gainful employment for those I love!

Way to go, Dad!

Monday, March 10, 2008

You open the door and...

This from fantasist Charles Stross' ever-flowing well o' creativity:

Politics as she is Played with 3d6

The recent death of Gary Gygax, who together with Dave Arneson invented Dungeons and Dragons, coincides with a most interesting period in the American Presidential primary season, as three hopeful monsters slouch towards an appointment with the polls in October or November or sometime around then. (You can tell how much attention I pay to US politics.) Anyway, in an attempt to correct my woeful ignorance of the state of play, I decided to turn to AD&D as the analysis tool du jour, and consulted my battered copy of the Monster Manual in hope of shedding some light on the crypt. After all, as Douglas Adams remarked, the whole point of voting for flesh-eating lizards in any election is that if you don't vote, the wrong lizard might get in. (Never mind the fact that, as one of those furrin people, I don't get a vote.)

Here's what my Monster Manual had to say on the matter: (NB: it's a 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual; I never could get the hang of those new-fangled 2nd edition rules.)

John McCain (Demon Prince of Republicans.) (Lesser God.)

FREQUENCY: Very rare
NO APPEARING: 1
ARMOUR CLASS: -7
MOVE: 3" (72" per flight sector on the campaign jet)
HIT DICE: 200 hit points (But first you have to defeat 4d8 Secret Service Agents)
% IN LAIR: 0%
TREASURE TYPE: All your NATO base are belong to us!
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: Invades Iran. Takes 100d20 casualties in first strike while inflicting 20 x 100d20 civilian casualties. Followed by war of attrition, economic collapse, recrimination.
SPECIAL ATTACKS: 5% chance of 30,000 Megaton nuclear first strike on Upper Volta.
SPECIAL DEFENSES: +3 or better weapon to hit. In event of combat, 20% chance of heart attack per round, followed by the swearing in of President Santorum. You wouldn't want that, would you?)
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 80% (10% vs. mind control spells by Cheney.)
INTELLIGENCE: Normal.
CHARISMA: 12 (16 to neocons)
ALIGNMENT: Chaotic evil if under control of Cheney; otherwise Chaotic neutral.
SIZE: M
LEVEL/X.P. VALUE: X/29,950* (* for impeachment)

A huge, ancient, carnivorous dinosaur from the swamps at the heart of Republican country, not unlike Godzilla in appearance and wrinkled integument, McCain has seen better years. Nevertheless he can breathe fire and threaten to stomp flat the capital city of any country that Fox News disapproves of with the best of them.

The biggest danger in facing off against a McCain is that he might be under the mind control of the Svengali-like Cheney, Prince of Darkness. In this case, he is likely to be lethally aggressive and even more unpredictable than usual.

Hilary Clinton (Demon Queen of Pork Belly Futures.) (Lesser Goddess.)

FREQUENCY: Very rare
NO APPEARING: 1
ARMOUR CLASS: -7 (But -4 if encountered in the same campaign as a Bill Clinton)
MOVE: 3" (72" per flight sector on the campaign jet)
HIT DICE: 200 hit points (But first you have to defeat 4d8 Secret Service Agents)
% IN LAIR: 0%
TREASURE TYPE: The future is ... Pork!
NO. OF ATTACKS: 1 + 1
DAMAGE/ATTACK: captures 2-16 superdelegates; 20% chance to cast Slime per round
SPECIAL ATTACKS: If sustaining damage, 33% chance per round of invoking Bill Clinton to fight alongside her. See also Big Dog.)
SPECIAL DEFENSES: +4 Fundraising, Regeneration, +3 or better weapon to hit.
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 80%
INTELLIGENCE: Genius
CHARISMA: 17 (Democrats)/ -1 (Republicans)
ALIGNMENT: Lawful Neutral (Will steal anything that's not nailed down, especially if she can construe it as lawful appropriation. Depending on the meaning of the word "it".)
SIZE: 14
LEVEL/X.P. VALUE: X/12,250* (* for impeachment)

As with all Clintons, Hillary exudes negative charisma towards Republicans. Otherwise, she's a classic machine reptile.

Barack Obama (Demon Prince of Upsetting Applecarts.) (Lesser God.)

FREQUENCY: Very rare
NO APPEARING: 1
ARMOUR CLASS:
MOVE: 3" (72" per flight sector on the campaign jet)
HIT DICE: 200 hit points (But first you have to defeat 4d8 Secret Service Agents — unless attacking in Texas, Florida, or other Republican-held states)
% IN LAIR: 0%
TREASURE TYPE: Budget Deficit: -500,000 million G.P. plus compound interest
NO. OF ATTACKS: 0 (He runs a clean campaign).
DAMAGE/ATTACK: Makes his opponents look foolish: -1 Charisma per round engaged in combat polite debate.
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Casts Mass Charm 1 per round engaged in combat polite debate.
SPECIAL DEFENSES: +5 Fundraising, Regeneration, +3 or better weapon to hit.
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 80%
INTELLIGENCE: Genius
CHARISMA: 18(100) (Democrats) / 12 (Republicans)
ALIGNMENT: Law Professor
SIZE: M
LEVEL/X.P. VALUE: X/89,950* (* for impeachment)

Handsome, intelligent, charismatic, and he manages to sound absolutely wonderful ... but how do you know what else is lurking under that sleek exterior? The Obama's main advantage in combat is that he makes everyone else in the melee look absurdly aggressive or foolishly short-sighted, sapping their Charisma. Probably the lesser evil, so once you elect him you'll have the luxury of knowing you've been eaten by the right lizard god.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Happy Daylight Savings (and Other Nonsense)

Here's a wacky video (by kickass British prog-rockers Muse) to help celebrate the inanity:

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Click to feed the turtles!

New New Rules

I especially like the last one.


Friday, March 7, 2008

Belly of the Whale

To start off this weekend's onslaught of audiovisual, here's my publisher's latest book trailer:



Feel free to pre-order the novel here.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Pieces of Me

Yesterday I went for my semi-annual physical. I go to the same doctor as my dad. This way the doctor already knows my family medical history. Also it gives me a chance to remind Dr. Hecht to remind my dad to keep his seat belt on, watch what he eats, etc. Sometimes compassionate pestering is easier to hear when accompanied by a medical license.

While at the doctor, I also got a confirmed diagnosis of an acute sinus infection. Me and every other American this winter, it seems. Perhaps Al-Quaeda is now targeting us through our colds. My doctor prescribed that I take steroids, antibiotics, and decongestants. So this morning I began my 7-day cocktail of methylprednisolone, ciprofloxacin, and pseudoephedrine.

Dr. Hecht also noticed some irregularities on my skin so he recommended I see a dermatologist. Today, already jittery from my meds, I had my first biopsy. Well, biopsies. Plural. They were painless and the surgery took less than 10 minutes. They are almost definitely harmless, but I do have a bum liver and a history of cancer in my family, so it never hurts to be too careful.

Well...sometimes it hurts to be too careful...but I'll save my rant about contemporary politics for another day.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

He was sixteen, going on, um, sixteen

My mom kindly reminded me of a few important details I neglected to mention about our L.A. trip way back when:

  • I think I implied that my first experience of Los Angeles was nonchalance. That's, um, a little revisionist. Truth be told, I walked around with my jaw open the whole time. I got giddy in front of Grauman's Chinese Theatre. I was one of those people.
  • Still am.
  • One day in our trip, we left Los Angeles behind and took a ferry ride to Catalina Island. We ate at a lovely restaurant...and by lovely, I mean that the floor was covered with peanut shells and the bathroom walls were plastered with naked centerfolds. California. The food was quite good. After lunch, we went on a bus ride around the mountainous island. The ridiculously sloped, precariously narrow roads along the Catalina mountains make the PCH look like Route 66. We almost died. A lot.
  • We also went to Disneyland, Knott's Berry Farm, and Universal Studios Theme Park. I got a kick out of Disneyland, got nauseous at Knott's Berry Farm, and was surprisingly unimpressed by Universal Studios (although, to be fair, many of the rides there were, for whatever reason, either under repair or under construction - this was a while ago).
  • The Las Vegas detour was a surprise. My sister and I knew we were going to L.A. (and, to be honest, suspected Las Vegas - Dad is Dad) but Las Vegas wasn't confirmed until late, late into the trip. While in Vegas, we stayed at the newly built Excalibur Resort & Casino. We bought two puppets from a casino kiosk and we named them, naturally, King and Queen.
  • While in Vegas, we also partook of the inexpensive, ultra-expansive buffets. Our first breakfast buffet was quite an eye opener to 16 year-old me. All you can eat bacon? I loved bacon! So, that morning, that's all I ate. Bacon. Bowls and bowls of bacon. Thus proving that Las Vegas does indeed lower one's IQ exponentially. So sick I got. So so sick.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Pilot programs

Today I emailed one of my agents a list of pilot pitches.

I want to write for TV and the way to land a TV-writing gig is to have either spec samples of already-existing shows or spec samples of original pilots. Jane Espenson at her blog (see my list of links) has written many excellent articles about this (and also has written many excellent episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Battlestar Galactica, etc.).

One caveat: to write for TV, one must also live in Los Angeles.

I first visited L.A. when I was 16. I went there on a vacation with my parents and my sister. We ate at Lowry's, walked Hollywood Blvd., forgot articles of clothing in our hotel room (namely my shoes), and then road-tripped to Las Vegas (where my dad won some money, my mom got stranded at a dry cleaners, and my sister and I got kicked off the floor at Caesar's - while at Caesar's, we also saw a David Copperfield show, which kicked illusory ass). I liked L.A. when I was 16, but I didn't really get a good sense of it until I returned about 14 years later and drove around the SoCal sprawl in my rented Ford Focus.

Being a strident New Yorker, I was prepared to loathe L.A. Much to my surprise, I still liked it. One of my fondest memories of that trip was when Kristy Hamer took me up a steep hill (part of Mount Hollywood) and showed me a really amazing view of the city. It actually had a halo. Sure, the halo was smog, but it was still quite a sight to see, this low-lying ring resting like a yellow hat atop miles of vastly eclectic architecture.

Maybe I should have written a pilot about that...

Monday, March 3, 2008

How Zune is Now?

My blood pressure has been very high, so today I bought a Zune.

She has a screen over 3'' wide and can store almost 80 gbs of pics, vids, and tunes. Poor health won't get me back in the gym but a $250 toy will. The irony is not lost, trust me.

My Zune is black. I haven't named her yet, but I will. She's made by Microsoft, but don't hold that against her. My first inclination actually was to buy an iPod but the Zune's screen is larger and I watch a lot of TV shows (just not on my TV - who has the time?). I don't plan on watching many movies on my Zune, though. Movies, unlike TV shows, are meant to be seen on a big screen. Movies are expensive and feature dazzling special effects. TV shows are cheaper to make and their special effects tend to come in the form of tricky storytelling (yes, oh yes, I will miss The Wire).

Right now I am transferring my CDs to my Zune. I worked five years in a music store so I have a lot of cds. But I have off this week and ripping CDs helps pass the time...when I'm not at the gym...watching The Wire.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

The future of reruns

Courtesy (legally!) of hulu.com



This is why the WGA went on strike.

(By the way, I selected the pilot episode of Friday Night Lights because it's, frankly, one of the best pilots I've ever seen - and more people need to watch it. Sermon over.)

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Happy quarterlife, Billie Jean!

But the "Thriller" video is way cooler.