It might seem like I'm just piling on LeBron sometimes, especially in his self-stated quest to become a "global icon". But just so you know: I'm not the only one.
Athletic. Amazing. Powerful. Phenomenal.
America's airwaves are jammed with superlatives to describe basketball star LeBron James, who began his first semifinal playoff series this week. No matter how Mr. James's Cleveland Cavaliers fare in their matchup against the Detroit Pistons, however, I've got my own description for his off-court decisions.
The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.
It is hard to think what is most annoying about this story. It's so hard let's make a quick list!
1. It contains NO on-the-record Washington sources. Not a single fucking one. In fact, the only named quotes are from a Sec. Gates press conference and a US general in Iraq who disagrees with the feasiblity of the entire supposed/possible/made up plan!
2. The entire story sounds like a planted leak from inside the White House to make it seem like the administration gets it has to plan to draw down troops even though just one day before the President was openly hostile to the SAME idea.
3. The article itself acknowledges this!
Still, there is no indication that Mr. Bush is preparing to call an early end to the current troop increase, and one reason officials are talking about their long-range strategy may be to blunt pressure from members of Congress, including some Republicans, who are pushing for a more rapid troop reduction.
4. Given all of the above (and pretty much the last six years), this story is still the paper's top story.
5. Oh yeah, that whole wrong math thing.
As we go into this holiday weekend meant to reflect on the ultimate sacrifices of the dead in the name of the nation, we should ask ourselves why our leaders, all of them, political, military, civilian, are unable to face the cultural equivalant of a paper cut to stop this mindless, horrible war.
Keeping with that, and this blog's long record of stealing from Crooks and Liars and questionable sports/politics connections, watch this video.
We play to win the game = we vote to stop this war
UPDATE: Greenwald says pretty much the same thing about the Times article that I do here, but with, you know, facts and shit.
I have not honked my car horn since September 11 as a gesture of respect to all of them. 9/11 also gave me a whole new insight into my Dad and why he left school in the 10th grade to enlist after Pearl Harbor.
Given what happened on The Sopranos Sunday night and the attention its been given, it's even odder not much was made of the end of last week's Lost with its ending involving one the main characters shot in the gut, bleeding to death, on top of a pile of roting corpses. Obviously, the show has "lost" lots of its audience for lots of reasons. The main one though seems to be the sinking feeling the writers have no idea where they are going. Sure, its cool to check out the Lostpedia, get links to sites trying to figure out why Richard doesn't seem to age, and read in detail about the weird black light writing on the hatch blast door that is cutting of Locke's leg, but if it doesn't really MEAN anything, what's the point? I have felt for most of this season, especially with the lame Juliet (come on, she's so lame!) and all the Others hand wringing (maybe they aren't so bad???), the only reason I've still been watching is simply the amount of time I have ALREADY watched. All the while, the feeling paying this close attention actually adds value to individual episodes or the larger, overarching themes and concerns, like in film (gasp!) and on shows like The Sopranos, The Wire, and BSG, has been slowly dripping away.
I mean, thinking of Season One and Two, Locke wants to get in that mysterious hatch, he is willing to sacrifice the lives of the other survivors to get in the hatch, the hatch is the answer. What's in the hatch then? Okay, not an answer, but this machine that is supposedly saving the world one B.F. Skinner experiment at a time. And then so on: one mystery after another "solved"....with another mystery! That all being said, the last few episodes have been great, and I'm totally sucked back in. We here at The Crackpot Times have been saying if this season continues on the lame Juliet-lined path it has been on for the last few months, that's it. (come on, fertility issues on the Island??? Why would you want to have a baby on that crazy Island? Maybe this can be the first issue for the Grey's Anatomy spinoff.) Especially with the last episode, it seems the Others won't be redeemed by the shows creators (with something along the lines "oh, your murderous, violent behavior was cause you really loved us!"). And, for me, the callous, horrific elimination of the Dharma Initiative and its hopeful anti-VC-like campaign returns the show to what has always been its central focus: mass catastrophe, dystopia, and the group/individual responses to shared trauma.
So these next three episodes are kind of important. Frankly, I'm more about less creepy Jacob stuff and more answers. And not "answers" like interviews without transcripts or oaths, but ANSWERS like live televised sworn testimony. Cause if we can't get it from scripted television, there's always the sports and government corruption that weirdly mimics The Godfather.
By the way, this is funny and related (for grad students...):
So the Utah/GS series is going back to totally racially sensitive Salt Lake City with the Jazz up 3-1. Much to say about that, but I just wanted to do some reporting! Actually, more like "reporting". After the game they started showing the highlights, and they were for Game 2 where Fisher came back in Utah! Barkley was the first to catch it, while Kenny Smith and Ernie said he was crazy and then realized he REALLY was paying attention. Barkley really has been on top of his game, realizing this obvious mistake AND having an interview in the New Republic about his political views. Seriously!
It is hard though to do live television stuff. There was this (great) recent mistake on the BBC that was up for a few minutes:
“Just as my first act as Chancellor of the Exchequer was to give away power to the Bank of England to restore trust in economic policy, so one of my first acts as Prime Minister would be to restore power to Parliament in order to build the trust of the British people in our democracy. Government must be more open and more accountable to Parliament — for example, in decisions about peace and war.”
Powerful stuff, Government must be open to Parliament, which runs Government. I'm waiting for his controversial stand on how voters should vote for candidates for Parliament, and that they in turn be open to choosing their respective party leader as Prime Minister.
And what is up with this photo along side the NY Times article? Is their campaign running with Guy Ritchies's support on the Lock Stock ticket?
Gonzales apparently thinks everything is going to be okay. Essentially, he's done such a great job of lying/forgetting about just WHO fired those US Attorneys. Sure he looks like incompetent and has lost all the credibility and respect needed for the job of Attorney General, but when you see everything in service to your Liege, what do you care? It's sort of like Odom being asked last year if he's ready to win a championship and he answered "You know, I'm really happy about playing in the league". Totally different expectations.
That all being said, Gonzales is an even BIGGER moron if he really thinks this is over, before he even started his House testimony this morning. This is a great clip, and all Gonzales has to defend himself is a stupid, "your big questions mean nothing to mean" smirk. Wonder where he learned that from?
On Tuesday I tried (again) to get my car radio finally fixed and ended up (again) just having lunch with AT. Driving back down Los Feliz Blvd I saw cops diverting traffic from Griffith Park. I even saw some hipster Observatory bus driver outside his bus in a left turn lane with his hands up in the air asking what to do. Then I went home to grade midterms as nearly a fifth of Griffith Park burned. I knew it was bad, but I didn't really notice till I went to the Ralph's on the corner and could see the HILL ON FIRE much like in this photo (from the LA Times link above):
There were tons of helicopters, fire trucks, and news vans. There were evacuations, not our neighborhood, not right next door, but close.
We went out on the roof to take a peak at it only to find 5 people quietly already up there (one filming it on his camera). There was a kind of apocalyptic feel to the evening, and some worrying about not having a kitty evacuation plan, but everything was okay. At least it felt that way; like all fires, it was hypnotic.
Now that she (or is it She) has gone back to her massive crib, here are my two fav photos of her visit:
Can you call this anything but a look of disgust? Its very similar to the one she gave Bush when he "accidentally" joked she visited the US in 1776 and the WINKED AT HER. It's one thing not to be serious about the soldiers you are sending off to die in Iraq, but to diss the Queen?!
Apparently kissing the Queen's hand is a faux-paux, but he doesn't care. He's MICKEY ROONEY, the biggest box office draw from 1939-1940, spanning two decades. I know CG loves this photo...
Here's a cool video interview with the director of IFFLA from the Passion for Cinema folks, if you were curious. You'll like it, seriously. You might see me scurrying in the back.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with horses. I just think Muybridge is neat.
The five people who read this blog seem pretty smart, so maybe you all can explain this Washington Post op-ed from Sally Quinn about Obama. Quinn is a kind of queen of mainstream, inside-the-beltway political journalism, and statements like this represents that worldview in all its smallness and obliviousness:
I was reminded of [the time I went to Brazil 30 years ago and talked to someone who may or may not have been black] the other day watching Barack Obama. I realized that when I look at him, I don't see a person of color. I see a really smart, appealing, thoughtful person. There is something about his manner that seems to demand that he be seen for who he is and not for what color he is.
Apparently this is why Obama is doing so well, when the arbiters of political culture see him, they don't see a man of color, they see someone smart (and clean!). This resulting feeling by (white) establishment of noticing themselves noticing themselves not noticing his race makes them feel all warm inside. "Look at me not noticing this black man running for President isn't black". No, seriously, it goes on like that:
In every country, when people learned I was American, the questions were the same: Could a black man possibly be elected president of the United States? More important, would Americans actually elect someone like him to represent their country? In almost every case the reaction at the possibility was admiration.
What really worries Quinn is "who are [Obama's] people". She's okay with Hillary because she knows the bad boys she's bringing to the table, like Harold Ickes and Terry "I couldn't beat a drunken Grant" McAuliffe. And besides Hillary, we know who everyone else running might bring with them to Washington (obviously!). But just who will this smart PERSON Barak Obama bring, WHO ARE HIS PEOPLE?!?! Once we know we can decide....
This is all fairly ridiculous, but what is amazing to me is Quinn doesn't seem to think a column like this is unflattering to whatever cosmopolitian image of herself she is trying to present. There seems to be no real point to the entire piece than to say she's down with (well-spoken) black people, doesn't even notice they are black, but secretly (and still open-mindedly) worries about the kind of people this black person will take into power with him. Smush's statements make more sense than this.
I guess Quinn should feel good about not seeing Obama as a person of color, what with all the evil hippiedy-hoppiedy culture destroying our youth and our very best talk radio hosts. As AH pointed out to me the other day with the video below, they are even going back and destroying the greatest American movie of all time. What will we "normal" people do with this destruction of our cultural landmarks???
I personally won't vote for Obama till he goes through every Public Enemy song lyric and denounces it line by line. And when he tells us who is people are.
Why care about sports? Cause sometimes you think about all the pressure and stress you are facing in your day to day life, and then you realize how luck you are your horrible breakdowns won't be the focus of months of media coverage. It is a bit silly to feel bad for someone who makes millions a year and will probably pick up the highest individual achievment reward for his profession next week, but how can you not feel bad for Dirk? Who I don't feel bad for is Smush Parker, who still doesn't seem to get it. As the Lakers struggle to figure out how to get Toronto to trade them Chris Bosh or Orlando to give up Dwight Howard for Brian Cook and the 19th overall pick, one thing is crystal:
One thing Jackson did make clear -- Smush Parker will not return next season. Parker started 162 straight regular-season games before being removed in favor of rookie Jordan Farmar with two games left in the regular season.
Parker, an unrestricted free agent, said he lost motivation late in the season.
"The game wasn't fun anymore," he said. "I don't play for the money. I play for the passion, the love of basketball."
When asked if in a perfect world he'd return to the Lakers, Parker paused before saying: "I don't know. Next question."
So Parker lost motivation before the beginning of the F-IN PLAYOFFS because he plays for the love? Does that make any sense to anyone?
His comments reminds me of some of the student papers I've been reading this week. Some are full of statements that are so powerfully empty of any sense of logic, reason, or fact it just boggles the mind. It kind of related to the recent Indian University study that found Bill O'Reilly goes to name calling 8.88 times per minute (nearly twice as much as good ol' anti-Semite Father Coughlin). In a country where 40% consider this guy a journalist (compared to 30% who say the same about Bob Woodword) and the starting point guard for the Lakers quits before the playoffs because he doesn't "feel the passion", why not turn in a paper on a topic you know nothing about, with no research, poorly written, full of unsubstantiated opinion, condesending to the reader, and expect to receive an A? You feel you deserve it in your gut, and you can just demand a detailed explanation for why your shitty work doesn't get what you feel from your loser TA who made a terrible life choice.
It's a couple of hours late, but the Mavs/Warrior series is ruling my world and I don't even live in Europe. With the Lakers all but eliminated and the focus being who is going to be blown out when the team is blown up (Lamar, really?), the great drama left is that shocking grudge match. Game 6 in Oakland Thursday = Game 7.
But yesterday might be more noteworthy for the clusterfuck of observances/anniversaries that happen on May 1st. It was the fourth year anniversary of the fantastic "Mission Accomplish" speech, which Bush now claims wasn't really a mission accomplish speech. It's mostly noteworthy for a specific example of just how glorious our glorious leader once was (and how well everything has actually turned out!). People on television, who are still on television, actually said things like this:
MATTHEWS: We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.
I don't know if Matthews knows this, but Putin actually is a guy. A guy who will kill you with low grade radioactive waste and then suggest his enemies killed you just to make him look guilty. They don't say Putin '08 for nothing!
May 1st is also May Day and this year marks the one year anniversary of the enormous, politically earthshaking immigration march in LA and elsewhere. Guestavo Arellano has a very interesting op-ed in the LA Times about how huge those protest were, essentially saying the immigration "debate" and immigrants won. I want to believe this is true, but I don't think any of us are in the mood of believing progress actually happens.
Especially on Loyalty Day. AT sent this to me not believing something like this was for real, until she found a similar resolution from Clinton. It does sound way weird, but after doing some in-depth research (on wikipedia), I confirmed what I originally suspected: Loyalty Day is capitalism's answer to May Day. For real. Supposedly it was first celebrated in 1921 when it was called "Americanization Day". For real. Too bad that name never caught on, otherwise we would read headlines like "Large groups of protesters demand amnesty on Americanization Day". That way it would probably be harder to vilify people who wish to become Americans and have lived in America for years for being "illegal", lazy, and untrustworthy.
